CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 10 mai 2016

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 196 May 2016 Topekhin v. Russia - 78774/13 Judgment 10.5.2016 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Conditions of detention and of transfer of paraplegic remand prisoner: violations Facts – In his application to the European Court, the applicant, a remand prisoner suffering from serious back injuries, paraplegia and bladder and bowel dysfunction, complained, inter alia , of the conditions of his detention and of his transfer to a correctional colony. Law – Article 3 ( substantive aspect ) (a)     Conditions of detention – The applicant had received no assistance from trained staff, but was forced to rely entirely on the help of his fellow inmates. The Court had found a violation of Article   3 in previous cases in which prison staff felt that they were relieved of their duty to provide security and care to more vulnerable detainees by making their cellmates responsible for providing them with daily assistance or first aid. The circumstances of the applicant’s case were even more acute because his need for bedside assistance was exceptionally high and required special skills and knowledge. That fact was accentuated by the presence of bedsores that were noted by the independent medical expert as a sign of neglect on the part of the authorities, indicating that the applicant was not repositioned regularly, was forced to spend much time in bed in one position, and was not regularly bathed or kept clean. The situation was further aggravated by bladder and bowel dysfunctions. In addition, the applicant’s inevitable dependence on his fellow inmates and the need to ask for their help with intimate hygiene procedures had put him in a very uncomfortable position and adversely affected his emotional well-being, impeding his communication with the cellmates who had to perform this burdensome work involuntarily. The conditions were further exacerbated by the failure to provide him with a hospital bed or other equipment, such as a special pressure-relieving mattress, affording a minimum of comfort. The conditions of the applicant’s detention in the remand prisons thus amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). (b)     Conditions of transfer – The applicant had been transported to the correctional colony in standard train carriages and prison vans with no special equipment installed to meet the needs of a bedridden person suffering from a serious back condition and bladder problems. The first part of the trip had taken nine hours, during which he was confined to a bunk in the train carriage. That trip had an evident detrimental effect on the applicant. During the following part of the trip he spent at least two hours being driven in a prison van to and from a detention facility. The authorities failed to take any corrective measures to meet his needs during the transfer, treating his complaints of acute pain with indifference. The fact that he was placed directly on the floor of the van exposed him to vibrations from the road during the journey and resulted in additional pain. Given his fragile condition, such treatment could have had a negative impact on his back and legs. The trip to the correctional colony was completed after a further five-hour journey by train and van in similar conditions. In these circumstances, the cumulative effect of the material conditions of the applicant’s transfer, and the duration of the trip, were serious enough to qualify as inhuman and degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also found, unanimously, a violation of Article 5 §   4 of the Convention for failure to conduct a speedy review of the orders for detention, but no violation of Article   3 on account of the quality of medical treatment provided to the applicant in detention and no violation of Article 5 §   3 of the Convention on account of an alleged failure of the domestic courts to provide sufficient reasons for his detention. Article 41: EUR 19,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes