CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 20 mai 1998

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 33599/96                       by Paul NEVARO                       against Finland           The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting in private on 20 May 1998, the following members being present:              MM     N. BRATZA, Acting President                  E. BUSUTTIL                  A. WEITZEL                  C.L. ROZAKIS            Mrs    J. LIDDY            MM     L. LOUCAIDES                  B. MARXER                  B. CONFORTI                  I. BÉKÉS                  G. RESS                  A. PERENIC                  C. BÎRSAN                  K. HERNDL                  M. VILA AMIGÓ            Mrs    M. HION            Mr     R. NICOLINI              Mrs    M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber           Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 19 September 1996 by Paul NEVARO against Finland and registered on 30 October 1996 under file No. 33599/96;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The applicant, a Finnish citizen born in 1961, was serving a prison sentence, most recently in the Turku Central Prison.         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.         In 1969 the applicant was diagnosed as being allergic, inter alia, to fish, pork meat and egg white. His allergy to fish is allegedly very serious and the smell of fish can kill him in a few minutes.         The applicant apparently began serving a prison sentence in 1987. As a protest against the prison authorities' disregard of his allergies he went on hunger strike five times.         On 5 February 1996 the Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman) found no reason to take action in response to the applicant's petition.         On 26 February 1996 the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice (oikeusministeriön vankeinhoito-osasto, justitieministeriets fångvårdsavdelning) noted, in response to the applicant's petition, that various arrangements had been made in view of his food allergies. For instance, while detained in the Hämeenlinna Prisoners' Hospital he had been invited to plan his own menu. In the Hämeenlinna County Prison the nursing staff had given instructions to the kitchen staff in view of the problems which the regular prison menu had caused the applicant. The Prison Administration therefore found no reason to criticise the applicant's prison conditions.         On 25 April 1996 the Prison Administration, again reaching the same conclusion, noted, inter alia, that after the applicant's transfer to the Turku County Prison instructions as to his menu had again been given and these had been followed. As for the risk of an allergy caused by the smell of fish, the Prison Administration proposed to transfer the applicant to a ward where he could eat separately from other prisoners. The applicant did not agree to such a transfer.         On 30 October 1997 the applicant was released on parole.     COMPLAINT         The applicant complains that he was unable, due to his serious allergies, to eat various food served to him during his imprisonment. He believes the prison authorities' failure to take into consideration this illness amounted to torture violating Article 3 of the Convention.     THE LAW         The applicant complains that the prison authorities failed to take into consideration his food allergies. He was therefore subjected to torture contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. This provision reads as follows:         "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or       degrading treatment or punishment."    Article 3 (Art. 3) of       the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and       inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective       of the victim's conduct. In order to fall within the scope       of Article 3 (Art. 3), the ill-treatment must attain a       minimum level of severity, the assessment of which depends       on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration       of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in       some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim       etc. In addition to the objective nature of the treatment       and its effects on the person subjected to it, also the       purpose of the authority which resorted to the measure may       be of relevance in determining whether it fulfils the       essential elements of treatment prohibited by Article 3       (Art. 3) (see, e.g., Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment       of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, para. 162;       Raninen v. Finland judgment of 16 December 1997, Reports       1997-VIII no. 60, para. 55.         In the present case the Commission notes that the prison authorities took various measures to ensure that the food served to the applicant would not jeopardise his health. Moreover, there is no indication that the prison authorities' attitude towards him denoted contempt or lack of respect for his personality or that the authorities attempted to humiliate or debase him.         In these circumstances the Commission finds no indication that the applicant's treatment attained the minimum level of severity required by Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, whether as torture or any other treatment proscribed by that provision. There is accordingly no appearance of a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3).         It follows that the application must be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.       M.F. BUQUICCHIO                                N. BRATZA      Secretary                                 Acting President to the First Chamber                         of the First Chamber