CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 24 février 2009

.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 } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   144 24.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GAGIU v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Gagiu v. Romania (application no. 63258/00), concerning the applicant’s conditions of detention and the treatment he was given in prison for his illness, which was to prove fatal, as well as his right of individual application to the Court.   The Court held unanimously that:   there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights in respect of the authorities’ obligation to protect the applicant’s life by administering the necessary medical treatment; there had been a violation of Article 2 of the Convention as regards the respondent State’s obligation to carry out an effective investigation; there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) on account of the conditions of the applicant’s detention at Aiud prison; there was no need to examine the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the authorities’ failure to provide the applicant with adequate medical assistance; there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) on account of the Aiud prison administration authorities’ refusal to provide the applicant with the requisite items for his correspondence with the Court; there had been a violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition).   As the applicant had died in the course of the proceedings and had no family, and the Court had continued to examine the case in conformity with Article 37 §   1 in fine of the Convention, the Court held that it was not necessary to afford just satisfaction. ( The judgment is available only in French. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Traian Gagiu, a Romanian national, was born in 1954 and died in September 2001. Having no family, he was raised in an orphanage.   In July 1994 Mr Gagiu, a shepherd, was arrested and remanded in custody for murdering another shepherd. On 25 January 1996 he was convicted of aggravated murder and sentenced to twenty years’ imprisonment by the Supreme Court of Justice. Amongst other ailments, the medical file drawn up by the authorities mentioned that the applicant had suffered since 1980 from chronic hepatitis and a chronic ulcer.   In July 1998 Mr Gagiu was hospitalised for five months in the prison hospital, and again for another ten days in December 2000, during which time he underwent various examinations that revealed that he was suffering from, inter alia , chronic obstructive bronchopneumonia and persistent chronic hepatitis.   The applicant returned to Aiud prison on 27 March 2001, where he was treated for chronic obstructive bronchopneumonia. In June 2001 the prison doctors reported that he had contracted scabies.   On 20 August 2001, suspecting chronic hepatitis, they sent Mr Gagiu to the Aiud Municipal Hospital where, following analyses, surgery was envisaged as well as further analyses at the Jilava prison hospital in Bucharest. The applicant’s medical file made no mention of whether or not the authorities actually followed the prescriptions made out by the specialists, or what treatment was administered to him between that visit and 7 September 2001, in particular for his liver cirrhosis.   On 31 August 2001 the applicant instituted proceedings to have his prison sentence suspended. On 7 September 2001 he was sent to Dej prison hospital “for medical supervision and treatment” until the outcome of the proceedings. In addition to the ailments already mentioned, the doctors there diagnosed early peritonitis.   While under treatment at that hospital, Mr Gagiu died on 8 September 2001 following a hepatic coma and cardiopulmonary arrest. The forensic report stated that death had been caused by liver and kidney failure with underlying liver cirrhosis, complicated by early peritonitis and haemorrhage of the upper digestive tract.   On 15 October 2001 the public prosecutor’s office decided to discontinue the proceedings, finding that the applicant had died of non-violent causes and that there were no grounds for criminal proceedings. A medical committee found in February 2004 that the treatment the applicant had received had been appropriate and that death had occurred following foreseeable complications.   In 2004, in spite of Mr Gagiu’s death, the Court decided to continue the examination of the application in view of the seriousness of the alleged violations and the fact that the applicant had no family.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 23 July 1999.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Ann Power (Ireland), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr Gagiu complained about his conditions of detention, and also of negligence by the prison authorities in the medical treatment administered to him, which he alleged had placed his life in danger. Relying on Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 34 (right of individual application), he complained of the prison authorities’ refusal to supply him with the items necessary for his application to and correspondence with the Court.   Decision of the Court   Article 2   The Court reiterated that the State’s obligation to protect the lives of persons in custody meant providing them in a timely manner with the medical care necessary to prevent death. It emphasised that the serious state of Mr Gagiu’s health had made special care and treatment necessary.   However, the Court noted that until 20 August 2001 the applicant had been treated only for bronchopneumonia, whereas his medical file also mentioned chronic hepatitis. Although aware of Mr Gagiu’s symptoms, the prison authorities had waited until that date before sending him to the municipal hospital.   The Court further observed that instead of receiving the treatment prescribed by the surgeons and specialists following the tests carried out at the municipal hospital,   Mr Gagiu had been placed in a cell until the day before he died.   The Court found that the prison authorities had not acted with due diligence in providing Mr   Gagiu with the necessary medical care, and that there had therefore been a serious failure on their part in their obligation to protect the health of a person in their custody, in violation of Article 2.   As to the authorities’ obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the applicant’s death, the Court noted that although the public prosecutor’s office had immediately opened an investigation, it had been confined to the treatment administered to the applicant at the prison hospital the day before he died, paying no attention to the possible negligence of the authorities responsible for monitoring his state of health at Aiud prison. The investigators had simply found that Mr Gagiu had died of natural, non-violent causes. The Court also noted that the medical committee had not announced its findings until more than two years after the investigation. It therefore held that the authorities had failed in their obligation to conduct an effective, thorough and timely investigation, in violation of their procedural obligation under Article 2.   Article 3   The Court noted that the Mr Gagiu had had only 1,25   m 2 of living space in Aiud prison, and that he had had to use the toilet in full view of his five fellow prisoners. It also pointed out that the scabies the applicant had contracted was an indication of the sanitary and hygiene conditions in the cell.   The Court considered that the hardship the applicant had endured had exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention, and undermined Mr Gagiu’s dignity. The applicant had suffered degrading treatment, considering the time he had spent in such conditions of detention and its damaging effects on his health. The Court held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 8   The Court observed that on numerous occasions in his correspondence with its Registry, Mr Gagiu had mentioned his lack of resources, having no family and being unable to work because of his state of health. It considered credible the applicant’s allegations that he had had to sell some of his food to other detainees in order to buy stamps for his letters to the Court.   The Court noted that the Government, who submitted that they had provided Mr Gagiu with the stamps he needed, had offered no valid explanation to disprove the applicant’s allegations. The Court therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 8.   Article 34   The Court reiterated that in order for the right of individual application enshrined in Article   34 to be effective, it was essential that applicants should be able to communicate freely with the Court. The examination of applications by the Court could be hampered if an imprisoned applicant was unable to supply copies of the documents needed for his file.   The Court noted that the prison authorities had required Mr Gagiu to pay for those copies in the knowledge that he had no resources and knowing also what the consequences of failure to send the documents to the Court would be. The Court took note of several attempts to dissuade the applicant and observed that no explanation had been offered for Mr Gagiu’s transfer from Aiud prison the day after he complained about the incident concerning the alleged disappearance of his first application form.   The Court considered that, in the situation of vulnerability and dependence in which the applicant had found himself, the dissuasive remarks of the prison authorities and the unjustified delay in supplying the applicant with the necessary material for his correspondence and the requisite documents for his application to the Court had obstructed the effective exercise of the right of individual application enshrined in Article 34.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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 Convention, 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.