CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 mars 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; 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 No. 84 March 2006 Saydam v. Turkey (dec.) - 26557/04 Decision 7.3.2006 [Section II] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Re-incarceration of prisoner following successful treatment for lung cancer: inadmissible   Facts : The applicant was born in 1948. On 12 March 1998 he was sentenced to seventeen years and six months’ imprisonment for drug trafficking. On 8 December 2002 he was diagnosed as suffering from lung cancer. He was transferred to the Edirne open-farm prison in order to facilitate his medical treatment; on 7   January 2003 he was operated on. The applicant remained in hospital until 24 January 2003 and received radiotherapy the following month. On 8 April 2003 the applicant was prescribed house rest for three months. Between 9 April and 12 June 2003 he was transferred to the prison clinic for a check-up on seven occasions; during this time the 3rd Section of the Forensic Medicine Institute recommended suspending his sentence for one year on the ground that his continued incarceration could be life‑threatening. On 13 June 2003 the Edirne Public Prosecutor suspended the applicant’s detention for one year and ordered his release. A report of Edirne State Hospital dated 4 May 2004 states that the applicant’s illness and treatment were continuing and that his situation constituted a handicap and a state of ageing. On 23   June 2004 the 3rd Section of the Medical Forensic Institute found that the applicant showed no sign of a recurrence of the disease; consequently, on 7 July 2004 the Edirne Public Prosecutor informed the applicant that he had seven days to report for re-incarceration. On 21 July 2004 the applicant filed a petition requesting the suspension of his prison sentence, challenging the veracity of the report of 23   June   2004. This petition was dismissed by the Edirne Public Prosecutor on 26 July 2004; the applicant was incarcerated in the Edirne open-farm prison on the same day. On 1 September 2004 the Edirne Public Prosecutor decided that, in view of the discrepancy between the reports of 4 May 2004 and 23 June 2004, the applicant’s case should be examined by the General Assembly of the Forensic Medicine Institute; the applicant’s sentence was suspended for six months and the applicant was released on the same day. On 23 September 2004, the General Assembly of the Forensic Medicine Institute decided concluded that the applicant’s state of health was not such as to prevent his continued imprisonment but decided to keep his case under review. On 29 November 2004 the Edirne Assize Court reviewed the applicant’s sentence in light of the provisions of the new Criminal Code, due to enter into force on 1 June 2005, and suspended the execution of his sentence until then. On 10 February 2005 the Faculty of Medicine of Thrace University submitted to the Edirne Public Prosecutor a report dated the previous day according to which the applicant presented certain symptoms due to the various treatments he had received but no symptoms of lung cancer; there was, however, a small risk of recurrence and the applicant should be kept under medical surveillance for a further five years. As of 22 August 2005 the applicant was still under medical surveillance but no further decisions as regards his re-imprisonment had been taken. Inadmissible under Article   3: The applicant was transferred to Edirne open-farm prison in order to facilitate medical treatment. He did not claim to have been denied adequate health care in prison. In this respect, the case file reveals that, prior to the suspension of the applicant’s sentence, the authorities took all necessary steps to ensure that the applicant received adequate treatment for his illness at various hospitals. He was also regularly examined at the prison clinic. As matters stand, the applicant’s situation does not attain a sufficient level of severity to fall within the scope of Article   3: manifestly ill-founded .   © 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