CEDH · CASELAW;RESOLUTIONS;EXECUTION;FRA;FRE — 7 mai 2013

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8EE18E3A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:56.7pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.25pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sF480646D { width:17.92pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s42BBCF49 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s8DE33171 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:35.45pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s91F6AE57 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAF6BE0DA { text-align:left; font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .s38F34D94 { width:22.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s9D928AA3 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s68ADC1C9 { width:10.87pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s33E89948 { width:10.87pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s90A93616 { width:27.66pt; display:inline-block } .sB6FF9115 { width:4.66pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD5FF4A2D { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-14.2pt; text-align:left } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s67F06EFC { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; color:#000000 } .s8BD0944A { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:49.65pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .sF354D260 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sCB4C08BB { width:13.76pt; display:inline-block } .s1E9E1B6C { margin-left:27.6pt; text-align:left; padding-left:8.4pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)88 Szuluk contre Royaume-Uni Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme   (Requête n o 36936/05, arrêt du 2 juin 2009, définitif le 2 septembre 2009)   (adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 7 mai 2013, lors de la 1170e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)     Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «   la Convention   » et «   la Cour   »),   Vu l’arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée   ;   Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe   1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire   :   -             de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par restitutio in integrum   ; et -             de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;   Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée   ;   Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)357E)   ;   S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,   DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et   DECIDE d’en clore l’examen. Action report Szuluk v United Kingdom (Application No 36936/05; final judgment on 2 September 2009) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 25 March 2013 (Anglais seulement)                   Case description   -   The applicant complained that the monitoring of a prisoner’s medical correspondence with his doctor was a breach of the Article 8 ECHR right to respect for correspondence. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 8. The Court held: -        In light of the severity of the applicant’s medical condition, uninhibited correspondence with a medical specialist in the context of a prisoner suffering from a life-threatening condition should be afforded no less protection than the correspondence between a prisoner and an MP. -        It concluded that “the monitoring of the applicant’s medical correspondence...did not strike a fair balance with his right to respect for his correspondence in the circumstances”. -   The Court awarded the applicant 1 000 euros in non-pecuniary damages plus 6 000 euros costs.   Individual measures   2.   Just satisfaction:   -   The just satisfaction award was paid in November 2009; the evidence of this has previously been supplied.      Individual measures:   -   No further individual measures are required because Mr Szuluk has been released from prison.   General measures   4.   General measures:   -        A Prison Service Instruction on prisoner communications includes amended policy to comply with this judgment. This can be seen at www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-49-2011-prisoner-comms-services.doc . Paragraph 14.15 is of particular relevance and sets out that: “Correspondence between a prisoner and a registered medical practitioner must be handled in confidence but only to the extent that the registered medical practitioner is acting in a professional capacity and the correspondence directly relates to the treatment of the prisoner”.   -        In respect of England and Wales, a Statutory Instrument was laid before Parliament on 25   November 2009 and came into force on 1 January 2010 ( www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3082 .) The SI amends, amongst other things, Rule 20 of the Prison Rules 1999 and Rule 27 of the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000 to provide that a prisoner may correspond confidentially with a registered medical practitioner who has treated the prisoner for a life threatening condition, and such correspondence may not be opened, read or stopped unless the Prison Governor has “reasonable cause” to believe that the contents do not relate to the treatment of that condition.   -        The Scottish Prison Service has made provision (see http://www.sps.gov.uk/Publications/Publication-3598.aspx ) in Rule 58 of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 which came into force on 1 November 2011 for the circumstances in which correspondence with medical practitioners may be opened or read, which is designed to be consistent with the decision in this case.   -        The Northern Ireland Prison Service has given effect to the Szuluk ruling by issuing an Instruction to Governors on 17 August 2012, which has amended the Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. The revised Standing Order is attached. In due course it will be available at: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/ni-prison-service.htm (website currently being redesigned). All staff in the NIPS must comply with the Standing Orders. It should be noted that there are specific procedures for dealing with prisoners who may develop a life-threatening illness whilst in custody and that well developed medical-in-confidence procedures are in place. If a prisoner were to develop a life-threatening illness whilst in prison he/she would have no need to correspond with a consultant as he/she would receive care on-site from the healthcare professionals. There would be a duty of care on behalf of the prison healthcare team to make contact with the prisoner’s healthcare provider on the outside if applicable and any such contacts would be covered by the medical in-confidence procedures   already in place.   Finally, it is also intended to amend the NI Prison Rules in due course.      Publication:   -   The judgment was publicised in The Times Law Report on 17 June 2009 (Application No 36936/05) and in Butterworth’s Medico-Legal Reports at 108 BMLR 190 (2009). The judgment is also available on online legal databases including English databases Lexisnexis, Lawtel and Westlaw.   6.   Dissemination:   -   The judgment has been disseminated to all UK prison jurisdictions (including Scotland and Northern Ireland) so that they can amend their policies and Rules, as above.   7.   State of execution of judgment:   -   The government considers that all necessary steps have been taken to implement the judgment, and that the case should be closed.   EXTRACT FROM NORTHERN IRELAND PRISON SERVICE STANDING ORDERS   5.3.5   LEGAL AND PRIVILEGED CORRESPONDENCE   Correspondence between a prisoner and his or her legal adviser, a Registered General Practitioner or any of the statutory bodies listed below is privileged and shall be treated as private and confidential provided the envelope is clearly marked ‘S.O. 5.3.5 Legal Correspondence’ where it contains correspondence between a prisoner and a legal adviser and ‘S.O. 5.3.5 Privileged Correspondence’ where it contains correspondence between a prisoner, their Registered General Practitioner/Specialist/Consultant and any of the statutory bodies.   The statutory bodies to which this order applies are:   Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission; Equality Commission for Northern Ireland; Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland; The Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.   ( Staff and prisoners should be aware that privileged correspondence with a Registered General Practitioner/Specialist/Consultant may only be entered into if the prisoner was already corresponding with them in relation to a life-threatening illness prior to their committal to prison – see IG12/12)   Where a governor believes that any envelope marked either ‘Legal Correspondence’ or ‘Privileged Correspondence’ contains material to which legal or medical privilege does not attach or which does not relate to the function of one of the statutory bodies, he may direct that it be opened, in the presence of the prisoner where reasonably practicable and examined by staff to the extent necessary to ascertain whether it should properly be afforded confidentiality.   Where an envelope is opened in accordance with this order, the correspondence shall be withheld from the prisoner only on the direction of the Director of Operational Support at NIPS HQ or his authorised representative.