CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 mai 2010

.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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .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. 130 May 2010 Ogică v. Romania - 24708/03 Judgment 27.5.2010 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Continuing situation linked to poor conditions of detention in police cells and remand prison: violation   Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Applicant’s continued detention for two days without legal basis following final decision requiring his release: violation   Facts – In 2001 the applicant was remanded in custody after a criminal complaint was made against him. The detention measure was extended every thirty days until the proceedings were concluded. In 2002 the District Court sentenced him to a prison term for attempted fraud. In January 2003 the court of appeal upheld that judgment but reduced the length of the sentence. Observing that the prison term was due to end at midnight the same day, it ordered the applicant’s release. The court’s registry immediately made contact with the prison concerned. However, the secretariat was closed and there was no one there to receive a fax. Since the applicant could not be released simply on the basis of a telephone call, he did not leave prison until two days later. Before the European Court, he complained of the conditions of his pre-trial detention first in a police cell (with some interruptions while he was in hospital) and then in prison. Law – Article 3: (a) Conditions of the applicant’s detention on the police premises – The Court applied the principle affirmanti incumbit probatio (he who alleges something must prove that allegation) in cases where the Government alone had access to information capable of corroborating or refuting the applicant’s allegations. The parties’ submissions concerning the conditions of detention in question were diametrically opposed. However, the mere fact that the Government’s version contradicted that provided by the applicant could not in itself lead the Court to dismiss the latter’s allegations as unsubstantiated. The Government had provided no reasons or valid supporting documents. Furthermore, their version was not corroborated by the materials in the file, which, on the contrary, indicated beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant, over a period of several months, had been consistently subjected to conditions of detention which were largely as he alleged in his complaint concerning the police cells (overcrowding, insanitary conditions, lack of fresh air and natural light, etc.). Regard being had, moreover, to the materials provided by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), the Court could not find that the exercise time allowed to the applicant in a communal area measuring 24   sq.   m. had been sufficient to compensate for the lack of space in his cell. In conclusion, the conditions of detention in the police cells had been such as to cause the applicant suffering beyond that inevitably associated with a prison sentence. (b) Conditions of detention in prison – The Court pointed out that it had already found a violation of Article   3 in similar cases relating to the same establishment. There was no reason to reach a different conclusion in the present case. The allegations not contradicted by the parties and the information emanating from the CPT, among others, made it clear that the applicant had had only about one square metre of living space in his cell. With the exception of around thirty minutes’ daily exercise outside, he had thus been confined to an overcrowded cell in poor hygiene conditions and without heating. The applicant’s overall conditions of detention (hygiene conditions, overcrowding, temperature of the cells, etc.) had remained similar despite his transfer from the police cells to prison, and were therefore to be considered as a continuing situation. While there was no indication that there had been any real intention to humiliate or debase the applicant, the absence of such intention did not mean there had been no violation of Article   3. The conditions of detention complained of, which the applicant had had to endure for a significant period of time, had subjected him to hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 1: The final judgment of January 2003 had sentenced the applicant to a prison term equal to the term of detention he had already served. As soon as the judgment was delivered, the registry of the court of appeal had contacted the prison with a view to the applicant’s release. However, it had been unsuccessful. Emphasising that the registry had contacted the prison management during the day, the Court could not accept that the authorities in charge of a prison should fail, because of the secretariat’s opening hours, to take the necessary steps to receive a faxed document required for a prisoner’s release early on a Friday afternoon, knowing that the closure of the office meant that the person concerned would be detained for a further forty-eight hours. That length of time could in no sense be said to constitute the unavoidable minimum time needed to give effect to the order for a prisoner’s release. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 8,000 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