CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 juillet 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     512   10.7.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PRICE v. UNITED KINGDOM   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered judgment [1] in the case Price v. the United Kingdom (application number 33394/96). The Court held, unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicants 4,500 Pounds Sterling (GBP) for non-pecuniary damage and GBP 4,000 for legal costs and expenses. (The judgment exists only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   Adele Price, a British national, is four-limb deficient as a result of phocomelia due to Thalidomide. She also suffers from problems with her kidneys.   On 20   January 1995, in the course of civil proceedings in Lincoln County Court for recovery of a judgment debt, she refused to answer questions put to her concerning her financial position and was committed to prison for seven days for contempt of court. The judge did not make any enquiry into where the applicant would be detained before committing her to immediate imprisonment.   Because her case had been heard during the afternoon, it was not possible to take her to prison until the next day and she spent that night in a cell in Lincoln Police Station. This cell, which contained a wooden bed and a mattress, was not specially adapted for a disabled person. The applicant alleged that: she was forced to sleep in her wheelchair, since the bed was hard and would have caused pain in her hips; that the emergency buttons and light switches were out of her reach; and that she was unable to use the toilet since it was higher than her wheelchair and therefore inaccessible.   During her detention in the police cell, the custody record showed that she was complaining of the cold every half hour – a serious problem for the applicant who suffered from recurring kidney problems and who, because of her disability, could not move around to keep warm. Finally a doctor was called, who noted that she could not use the bed and had to sleep in her wheelchair, that the facilities were not adapted to the needs of a disabled person and that the cell was too cold. No action was taken by the police officers responsible for the applicant’s custody to ensure that she was removed to a more suitable place of detention or released. Instead, she had to remain in the cell all night, although the doctor did wrap her in a space blanket and give her some painkillers.   The following day she was taken to New Hall Women’s Prison, Wakefield, where she was detained in the prison’s Health Care Centre until the afternoon of 23   January 1995. Her cell had a wider door for wheelchair access, hand pulls in the toilet recess and a hydraulic hospital bed.   However, she had problems sleeping (as the bed was too high) and in terms of hygiene. During her first night’s detention, the nursing record stated that the duty nurse was unable to lift the applicant alone and thus had difficulty in helping her use the toilet. The applicant submitted that, as a result, she was subjected to extremely humiliating treatment at the hands of male prison officers. The Government denied her account, but nonetheless it seemed clear that male officers were required to assist in lifting the applicant on and off the toilet.   By the time of her release the applicant had to be catheterised because the lack of fluid intake and problems in getting to the toilet had caused her to retain urine. She claimed to have suffered health problems for ten weeks thereafter, but has supplied no medical evidence to support her claim.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was transmitted to the European Court of Human Rights on 1 November 1998 and declared admissible on 12 September 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Willi Fuhrmann (Austrian) Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Nicolas Bratza (British), Hanne Sophie Greve (Norwegian), Kristaq Traja (Albanian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), judges ,   and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant alleged that her committal to prison and her treatment in detention violated Article 3.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court considered it significant that the documentary evidence submitted by the Government, including the contemporaneous custody and medical records, indicated that the police and prison authorities were unable adequately to cope with the applicant’s special needs.   The Court observed that there were notes in the applicant’s admission records by a doctor and staff nurse expressing concern over the problems that were likely to be encountered during her detention, including reaching the bed and toilet, hygiene and fluid intake, and mobility if the battery of her wheelchair ran down. Such was the concern that the prison governor authorised staff to try and find the applicant a place in an outside hospital. In the event, however, they were unable to transfer her because she was not suffering from any particular medical complaint.   The Court found no evidence of any positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant. However, it considered that to detain a severely disabled person in conditions where she was dangerously cold, risked developing sores because her bed was too hard or unreachable, and was unable to go to the toilet or keep clean without the greatest of difficulty, constituted degrading treatment contrary to Article 3.     Judges Bratza, Costa and Greve expressed separate opinions, which are annexed to the judgment.   ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [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 the case to the Grand Chamber. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.