CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 2 novembre 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 } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   656 02.11.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SERIFIS v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Serifis v. Greece (application no. 27695/03).   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 on account of the absence of appropriate medical assistance for the applicant during part of the period he spend in detention; and, a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to have lawfulness of detention decided speedily by a court) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   Pavlos Serifis is a Greek national who was born in 1956 and lives in Athens.   The applicant’s left hand has been paralysed since a road-traffic accident in 1980. In addition, he has suffered since 1996 from multiple sclerosis, a progressive inflammatory disease which affects the brain and spinal cord, resulting in a variety of problems affecting neurological, motor, balance and sight functions, and requiring multi-disciplinary care, such as therapeutic and symptomatic treatment and physiotherapy.   On 24 July 2002 the applicant was arrested by the police and placed in pre-trial detention; he was suspected of belonging to the terrorist organisation “17 November” which, between its foundation in 1975 and its disbanding in early summer 2002, was responsible for several criminal acts. He was detained with other presumed members of the organisation in Korydallos Prison in specially-designed cells which had been built in 2002. The applicant had a cell to himself, which measured 12 m² and contained a separate living area, toilet and shower.   In December 2002 the applicant applied for conditional release, alleging, among other things, that his illness meant that he ought to be cared for in a neurological hospital; he also asked to be allowed to appear before the Indictments Chamber in order to defend himself. His request was dismissed by the Indictments Chamber, which, in justifying his continued detention, referred to his dangerousness, the seriousness of the offence with which he was charged and the possibility of his absconding; it also considered that the applicant’s condition could be treated in the prison hospital.   In June 2003 the applicant repeated his request to appear before the Indictment Chamber which was to rule on the extension of his detention, and referred to a medical report stating that his illness had worsened and recommending treatment in a hospital setting. However, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended.   On 17 December 2003 Athens Assize Court convicted the applicant of belonging to a criminal organisation and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against that judgment and the case is currently pending before Athens Court of Appeal.   Referring to several medical reports, in January 2004 the applicant applied for release, arguing that if he continued to serve his sentence, he was likely to sustain irreparable damage to his health. At the prosecutor’s request, the applicant was examined by two doctors, who concluded that his health was very poor: they asked that supplementary tests be carried out and recommended treatment in a neurological clinic. The applicant’s request was dismissed, but the prison’s governing board suggested that he be transferred to Georgios Gennimatas Hospital for additional tests and so that decisions concerning his care could be taken in a hospital which specialised in treating patients with his disease.   Between 14 July 2004 and 30 January 2005, the applicant was transferred on seven occasions to Georgios Gennimatas Hospital for tests or treatment. During his last visit, the doctors noted that his health had deteriorated. During the same period he received physiotherapy in the hospital prison.   In December 2004 the applicant filed a new request for conditional release. His request was granted and on 8 February 2005 he was released, following payment of EUR 6,000 as security. He was placed under court supervision.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 August 2003 and declared partly admissible on 8   September 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints The applicant alleged that, given his state of health, his continued detention amounted to inhuman treatment. He also complained, in connection with the refusal of his request to appear before the Indictment Chamber of Athens Court of Appeal, of a breach of the principle of equality of arms. He relied on Article 3 and Article 5 § 4.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court noted that it was clear from the case file that, despite the seriousness of the disease from which the applicant suffered, the Greek authorities had procrastinated in providing him with a form of medical assistance during his detention which would correspond to his actual needs.      Although the applicant had informed the relevant authorities about the state of his health shortly after his arrest, he was obliged to wait a considerable period before receiving regular care. During the first two years of his detention, he was required to make do with occasional checks and whatever treatment could be administered in the prison hospital. Thus, the applicant was unable to have regular testing of the development of his disease in a specialised hospital environment, or to deal with the numerous problems caused by multiple sclerosis by having suitable medication prescribed for his individual case. It was not until the summer of 2004 that a treatment plan adapted to his illness was put in place and physiotherapy sessions were organised in the prison hospital. Indeed, the applicant’s need for regular medical care was the ground given for his conditional release.     In those circumstances, the Court considered that the manner in which the Greek authorities had dealt with the applicant’s health during the first two years of his imprisonment had subjected him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.   The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 5 § 4 The Court pointed out that it had already found a violation of Article 5   § 4 on account of the Indictment Chamber’s refusal to authorise an individual’s personal appearance before it during examination of his or her request for release. In the applicant’s case, the Court considered that, in dismissing the applicant’s request to appear before it, the Indictment Chamber had deprived him of an opportunity to contest, in an appropriate manner, the reasons put forward to justify his continued detention. The Court therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 4.   ***   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.