CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 7 juillet 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 } .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 } .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 }     553 07.07.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT GRORI v. ALBANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Grori v. Albania (application no. 25336/04). The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the unlawfulness of his detention pending the outcome of domestic proceedings in Albania for the validation and enforcement of a life sentence imposed by the Italian courts in his absence for murder and illegal possession of firearms, as well as about the lack of adequate medical treatment while in detention.   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 inadequate medical treatment provided to the applicant during his detention; a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s detention from 15 May 2002 to 29 December 2003; and, a violation of Article 34 (right of individual petition) concerning the delay in compliance by the Government with the Court order to transfer the applicant to a civilian hospital.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 8,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   7,000 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Arben Grori, is an Albanian national who was born in 1971. He is currently in Peqin High Security Prison (Albania) serving a 15-year prison sentence for international narcotics trafficking and a life sentence for murder and illegal possession of firearms, the latter offences having been committed on Italian territory.   Mr Grori was initially detained in Albania on 30 April 2001 on the basis of an arrest warrant issued in Italy on 16 February 2001 in relation to his alleged involvement in drug trafficking. On that same day, Interpol Rome asked the Albanian authorities to initiate criminal proceedings against the applicant for crimes committed on Italian territory. In July 2002 the Albanian Prosecutor General charged Mr Grori with international narcotics trafficking and on 29 December 2003 the Albanian courts found him guilty as charged and sentenced him, in June 2006, to 15 years in prison.   In addition, on 2 February 2001, the Italian authorities sentenced in absentia the applicant to life imprisonment for murder and to five years for illegal possession of firearms. However, they could not request the enforcement of that sentence in Albania, as at the time neither country was party to any international agreement on the matter.   While in detention pending the criminal proceedings in Albania for drug-trafficking carried out in Italy, on 15 May 2002 Mr Grori was served with an Albanian judicial decision ordering his detention pending the proceedings for the validation of the sentence imposed on him in Italy for murder and illegal possession of firearms.   Mr Grori complained before the Albanian courts that no request for the validation of the sentence in absentia passed in his respect in Italy had been addressed by the Italian authorities to the Albanian Minister of Justice. He also claimed that there had been no relevant international agreement in force between the countries at the relevant time for such a validation to take effect. He also relied on the fact that he had not given his consent for the validation as required by the then Code of Criminal Procedure. The domestic courts found against him, concluding that according to international criminal law rules, cooperation between countries could occur even in the absence of bilateral treaties, on the basis of good will, generally recognised norms and the principle of reciprocity.   Between 24 September 2003 and 16 February 2004, Mr Grori asked for an appropriate medical examination in view of the deterioration in his health. In August 2004 he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, the doctors reporting that his disease could cause him shock, organ damage, permanent disability or death. In 2005, he brought several sets of criminal proceedings against the prosecution and the Head of Tirana Prison Hospital complaining of negligence in the provision of medical care to him given that it had been delayed and he was being treated mainly with drugs prescribed to cure rheumatism.   On 10 January 2008, upon his request, the Court ordered the Albanian Government as an interim measure to transfer him immediately to a civilian hospital for examination and appropriate medical treatment. On 28 January 2008, the Government transferred him to Tirana University Hospital Centre where he passed a specialised medical examination. Since 17 June 2008, Mr Grori has been receiving regularly the appropriate medical treatment for his disease.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9 July 2004 and was examined for admissibility and merits at the same time.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Josep Casadevall (Andorra), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Kristaq Traja (Albania), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Mr   Grori complained of having received inadequate medical treatment in prison and about the unlawfulness of his detention for the validation and enforcement in Albania of the life sentence imposed by the Italian courts in his absence. He relied on Articles   3, 5   §   1, 6   §   1 (right to a fair trial), 7 (no punishment without law) of the Convention and on Article 2   of Protocol No.   7 (right of appeal in criminal matters). He also complained that his transfer to a civilian hospital in January 2008, as indicated by the European Court of Human Rights under Rule 39 (interim measures) of its Rules of Court, had been delayed, in breach of Article 34.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 (medical treatment)   The Court noted with concern that between April 2005 and 28 January 2008 Mr Grori had been left for long periods of time without adequate medical treatment, despite suffering from a serious disease. In particular, the last medical report on his state of health had confirmed that the progression of the disease over the years had been due to the lack of medical care. The Government had not provided any justification about why it had refused to provide him with the medical treatment prescribed by the civilian doctors, especially given that it had been provided free of charge to persons in public hospitals at the time; the Government had likewise failed to explain how the treatment with vitamins and anti-depressants could be considered adequate in the circumstances. Neither had the government provided a plausible explanation for the deterioration of the applicant’s health in prison. The Court concluded that all the above had created such a strong feeling of insecurity in Mr Grori that, combined with his physical suffering, it had amounted to degrading treatment, in violation of Article   3.   Article 5 § 1   The Court noted that the Supreme Court’s search for a legal basis for the applicant’s detention, had led it to import into domestic law provisions of international law instruments which had not yet entered into force with respect to Albania. Thus, the legal basis ultimately found by the Supreme Court could scarcely be said to have met the requirements for “lawfulness” as regards the applicant’s detention and the conversion of his sentence imposed by the Italian courts. The Court concluded therefore that, between 15 May 2002 and 29   December 2003, Mr Grori had not been detained in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law, and that there had therefore been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   Article 34   The Court noted that despite having become aware at the latest on the morning of 11 January 2008 of its order to transfer the applicant into a hospital, the Government had effectuated his transfer only on 28 January 2008. Accordingly, the Court’s order had not been complied with for 17 days and there had been no objective obstacles preventing the authorities to do so. There had therefore been a violation of Article 34.   Other complaints   The Court held that it was not necessary to examine separately under Article 6 § 1 the applicant’s complaint as regards the unlawfulness of the proceedings concerning the validity and enforcement in Albania of the sentence imposed on him in Italy. It also dismissed the applicant’s other complaints.     ***   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) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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.