CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 6 February 2023   THIRD SECTION Application no. 2398/18 Ledjo YZEIRI against Albania lodged on 5 January 2018 communicated on 19 January 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the adequacy of medical care provided to the applicant in prison, namely whether there was an obligation on the State to provide the applicant a nose surgery free of charge for the injury he sustained when he was not in the hands of the authorities, but in the course of committing a criminal offence (an aggravated robbery), as well as the length of civil proceedings in which the applicant sought damages in that connection. The applicant brought civil proceedings against the State, claiming damages for lack of adequate medical treatment in prison. The claim was dismissed on the ground that the applicant had not suffered his injury at the hands of the police, but before he had been arrested, in the course of committing the criminal offence of aggravated robbery for which he had been convicted. Therefore, the prison was not obliged to provide him a nose surgery free of charge. The applicant should have asked for a surgery and guarantee to bear the costs of it, which he had not done. The civil proceedings lasted 6 years, 4 months and 19 days before four instances, of which 3 years, 2 months and 26 days before the Supreme Court.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to treatment contrary to Article   3 of the Convention? In particular, did the circumstances and manner of the treatment by the prison authorities of the applicant’s ailments amount to inhuman treatment (see, for general principles, Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no.   18052/11, §§ 141-48, 31 January 2019, and Khudobin v. Russia , no.   59696/00, § 93, 26 October 2006)?   2.     Was the length of the civil proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000 ‑ VII)?