CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 12 avril 2011

.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. 140 April 2011 Flamînzeanu v. Romania - 56664/08 Judgment 12.4.2011 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Conditions of detention unadapted to detainee’s disability: violation   Facts – In 2003 the applicant fractured his spine. He was remanded in custody in January 2006, charged with committing robbery with violence. In February 2006 he was obliged to begin using a catheter owing to urinary problems. He was detained in Rahova Prison in September 2006, and in 2008 was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. In February 2009 the applicant was transferred to Giurgiu Prison and in November of that year to Jilava Prison, where he remains to date. Before the European Court, the applicant complained of the poor conditions of detention in Rahova, Giurgiu and Jilava Prisons, and in particular of inadequate medical treatment and overcrowded cells. Law – Article 3: None of the numerous medical reports had found a causal link between the deterioration in the applicant’s kidney function and his conditions of detention or medical treatment. Therefore, the applicant’s disability had not been caused by his detention and the authorities could not be held responsible for it. However, while the authorities had, by and large, responded adequately to the applicant’s health problems by providing him with the prescribed treatment, his particular circumstances could not be disregarded, given that he was obliged to use a catheter on a daily basis and had partial paralysis of the lower limbs. With regard to the conditions of detention in Rahova Prison, even assuming that the occupancy level of the applicant’s cell had satisfied the requirements of Article   3, the sanitary conditions and lack of hygiene, including the limited access to showers, had been incompatible with his state of health and with his doctors’ recommendations. In Giurgiu Prison the applicant had lived in cramped conditions (between 3.62 sq.   m and 3.97 sq.   m of space depending on the type of cell, without counting furniture). This was below the standard recommended to the Romanian authorities by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT). Moreover, the applicant had shared his cell with five or six other inmates although the prison had two-person cells which might have been compatible with the doctors’ recommendations. As to the applicant’s detention in Jilava Prison, the reports of the CPT and the Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe had described the conditions of detention variously as “deplorable”, “alarming” and “appalling”. The lack of hygiene was exacerbated by the restricted access to showers and by severe overcrowding. Furthermore, the applicant had been taken out of prison for medical tests in a vehicle which was not adapted to his state of health, and had been forced to wait for several hours in a cell which did not have the necessary disabled facilities. It was true that there was no evidence of any real intention to humiliate or debase the applicant. However, in view of his individual circumstances, the cumulative effect over a significant period of his physical conditions of detention combined with his disability had subjected the applicant to hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and therefore amounted to degrading treatment in breach of Article   3. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 10,000 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