CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 19 octobre 2006

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS 612 19.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KOVAL v. UKRAINE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Koval v. Ukraine (application no. 65550/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been: a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the lack of available medical treatment and the applicant’s detention conditions; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) .   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) the Court awarded the applicant 1,000   euros (EUR) for pecuniary damage, EUR 4,000 for non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vasyl Gavrylovych Koval, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1951 and currently lives in Kyiv.   In November 1997 Mr Koval, an ambassador, was detained on suspicion of having committed forgery while a public official. In December 1997 he was transferred to Zhytomyr Regional Investigative Isolation Unit (SIZO), where he was medically examined and diagnosed with a number of serious health problems including hypertension and extensive spinal osteochondrosis.   On 29 June 1998 he was released on bail ­ – after his wife paid 500,000 Ukrainian hryvnyas (UAH) (equivalent to about 196,900 euros) – on the grounds that it was impossible to provide him with the medical treatment he needed.   He was subsequently taken back into detention, after being found guilty of trying to influence a witness, and the bail was confiscated. The decision to confiscate bail, which was based on witness evidence, was subsequently reviewed five times, including by Kyiv City Court. The applicant’s wife was not questioned during the proceedings.   On 20 October 1998 the General Prosecution Service ordered that the applicant be taken into custody on the ground that he was obstructing the investigation. He was then detained in the Security Service Investigative Isolation Unit (the SIZO SBU) (apart from a short period when he was released between 27 and 30 November).   The applicant complained about his detention conditions in the SIZO SBU. He maintained, in particular, that the toilet was in the middle of the cell on an elevated concrete base and that there was no water in the cell and that cold water was supplied only on request and only for short periods.   Medical examinations of the applicant were conducted in March, May and November 1998. By November the applicant was found to be suffering from critical second-degree idiopathic hypertension, second-degree cardiosclerosis and ischaemic heart disease. On 30 November 1998 he was hospitalised with acute hypertension.   From December 1998 to June 1999 the applicant unsuccessfully lodged a number of complaints seeking his release from custody on account of his poor health.   A commission of medical experts, which examined the applicant in June and July 1999, concluded that he should be given in-hospital medical treatment if he could not be treated adequately during his detention. The medical examination revealed that the applicant was suffering from, among other things, hypertension, a second-degree circulatory brain disorder, the residual effects of a small cerebral haemorrhage, an ulcer, colitis and dermatitis.   In July 1999 Kyiv City Court was informed that neither the SIZO SBU or SIZO No. 13 could provide the medical treatment needed by the applicant, owing to a lack of suitable medical staff and equipment. However, on 3 August 1999, the City Court decided to transfer the applicant to SIZO No. 13 after receiving a further document, signed by its deputy governor, stating that the applicant could be provided with the medical treatment he required.   The applicant was placed in a 14m² medical unit in SIZO No. 13. which he shared with between nine and 11 other detainees, some of whom were suffering from tuberculosis and venereal diseases. He maintained also that, at that time, SIZO No.   13 received State funding of only UAH   0.08 (about EUR 0.01) per day per detainee.   The applicant was ultimately found guilty of aiding and abetting unlawful currency transactions, abuse of power and forgery committed by a public official. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment. His personal property was confiscated and he was banned from holding public office for two years.   On 6 June 2000 he was transferred to Mensk Prison, where he started receiving inpatient treatment in the medical unit.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 October 2000, it was declared partly admissible on 30 March 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention and that he did not receive proper medical treatment and assistance from 30 November 1998 until 8   June 2000. He also complained that the proceedings concerning the forfeiture of bail had been unfair. He relied on Article 3, 13 and 6 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court noted that the applicant’s submissions concerning the conditions of his detention were not contested by the Ukrainian Government and corresponded in general to the inspections of the pre-trial detention centres in Ukraine conducted, in particular, by the Committee for the Prevention of Torture of the Council of Europe and the Commissioner of Human Rights of the Ukrainian Parliament. The Court therefore concluded that the applicant was detained in unacceptable conditions.   Moreover, the Court noted that the medical reports submitted by the parties showed that the applicant suffered from various illnesses while in detention and that, over the course of his detention, his health significantly deteriorated.   The fact that the applicant had contracted dermatitis and suffered from heart-related diseases and that those diseases had worsened – despite the fact that he had received medical treatment for those illnesses – demonstrated that he had been detained in an unsanitary environment, with no respect for basic hygiene.   Concerning the lack of medical assistance and treatment, the Court noted that, on 14 July 1999 the SIZO SBU informed the applicant and the authorities that it was impossible to provide him with the necessary medical treatment. In addition, the domestic authorities disregarded the medical conclusions of the commission of experts that he should be given in-hospital medical treatment if required. It was not until 3 August 1999 that Kyiv City Court decided to transfer the applicant from the SIZO SBU to SIZO No. 13.   Taking into account the conditions of the applicant’s detention, which clearly had a detrimental effect on his health and well-being, and the lack of medical treatment and assistance, the Court considered that there had been a violation of Article 3. The nature, duration and severity of the ill-treatment to which the applicant was subjected and the cumulative negative effects on his health could be qualified as inhuman and degrading.   Article 13 The Court noted that the problems arising from the conditions of the applicant’s detention and his alleged lack of proper medical treatment were of a structural nature and did not only concern his personal situation. The Government did not demonstrate what kind of reasonable redress the domestic courts or other State authorities could have afforded the applicant, given the accepted and undisputed economic difficulties faced by the prison authorities. The Court therefore concluded unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 13 on account of the lack of an effective and accessible remedy under domestic law in respect of the applicant’s complaints concerning his treatment in detention and the conditions in which he was detained.   Article 6 § 1 The Court noted that the applicant's complaints under Article   6   concerned two issues, namely that witness statements by his wife were not examined by the domestic court when the issue of the forfeiture of bail was being determined, and that the principle of equality of arms was not respected as he was unable to prepare his defence as regards the issue of forfeiture of bail, which was resolved by the domestic courts automatically.   The Court noted that the applicant initially did not ask to have evidence taken from his wife in court in connection with the issue of forfeiture of bail. Furthermore, he failed to explain what he intended to prove with that evidence or how it could have been relevant to the determination of the charge of interfering with a witness.   The Court also noted that the decision to forfeit bail was based on the testimonies of witnesses and was later examined by Kyiv City Court in the presence of the applicant and his lawyers, who had the opportunity to argue before the court that that evidence was inadmissible or untrue or to request the examination of other witnesses, including the applicant’s wife, in order to prove their case.   The initial decision to confiscate bail was reviewed on five successive occasions and was found to have been lawful and substantiated. Furthermore, taking into account the proceedings as a whole, the Court considered that the applicant had had adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence in the course of the examination of the bail confiscation issue by the domestic courts.   The Court concluded unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.