CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 17 janvier 2024

.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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } Published on 24 July 2024   THIRD SECTION Applications nos. 43123/18 and 45766/18 Mohamed-Deyab HUSSEIN against Greece lodged on 6 September 2018 and 28 September 2018 respectively communicated on 17 January 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the detention on remand of the applicant, a German national, and the conditions of his detention. The applicant’s placement in detention on remand On 3 May 2018, the applicant was arrested. He was charged with (a) instituting, managing and participating in a criminal organisation, (b) aggravated fraud against the State, (c) aggravated drug trafficking, (d) aggravated embezzlement against the State, (e) money laundering and (f) false medical certification. On 8 May 2018, by order no.   6/2018, the investigative judge ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. The detention order reiterated the accusation that the applicant had founded a criminal organisation for trafficking in high-priced pharmaceutical products and illegal drugs which had been embezzled from hospitals and pharmacies. The applicant had been one of the organisation’s managers tasked with legitimising and diffusing the products in foreign markets via companies in Greece and Germany, including a pharmacy co-owned by him. The order held that there was reasonable suspicion that the applicant committed the acts and that he was highly likely to commit similar offences, considering that he was a mastermind of the organisation, having acted repeatedly and through sophisticated schemes. Any less restrictive measures than his detention would be ineffective. On 16 August 2018, the applicant lodged a request with the investigative judge, to have the detention lifted on the ground that the order’s reasoning was deficient. He also argued that he suffered from a 70% disability, and that a re-examination by the Greek authorities regarding his disability would delay the lift of detention. He complained that his detention was contrary to Articles   3 and 5 of the Convention. On 4 October 2018, the investigative judge rejected the applicant’s request by order no. 46/2018. Τhe judge reiterated that there was reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences of which he was accused. Considering the apparent prowess of the applicant in co-managing the organisation, the judge held that there was an increased risk that the applicant would commit further offences and that less restrictive measures would not be effective. Additionally, the judge held that the applicant had not invoked his disability before his detention was ordered. Further, as the medical documentation submitted by the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of domestic law, he had to undergo other medical examinations. However, the applicant had refused these examinations, arguing that it would delay the lift of his detention. The applicant did not appeal against order no. 46/2018 before the competent Judicial Council. The applicant’s conditions of detention and medical treatment Following his arrest on 14 May 2018, the applicant was transferred to Amfissa Prison. On 29 June 2018 he complained to the Supervisor Prosecutor under Article 572 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, requesting his transfer to Korydallos Prison Hospital. He argued that he was detained in a dormitory with 28 other persons, in very poor conditions. On 13 July 2018, the applicant was moved to Korydallos Prison Psychiatric Hospital. The supervising doctor found that the applicant showed initial stages of dementia and prescribed him medical treatment. During his detention there, the applicant was transferred to Korydallos Prison Hospital on five occasions (between July 2018 and October 2018) for (a) examinations regarding diabetic retinopathy, (b) dysuria, which was diagnosed as prostatic hyperplasia, (c) other medical examinations, (d) treatment for acid reflux and pain in the liver and (e) examination due to urinary retention. On one occasion, the transfer of the applicant to an external hospital (“ Attiko Hospital” ) was ordered. On 6 September 2018, the Korydallos Prison Council authorised the examination of the applicant by private doctors.   The applicant complains that the detention order was not reasoned, because the charges were unsubstantiated, and his disability was not considered. Further, he complains about the length of the proceedings pertaining to the lift of his detention on remand. Lastly, he complains of his conditions of detention in view also of his medical condition. He relies on Articles 3, 5 and 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Applications nos. 43123/18 and 45766/18   1.     Was the applicant brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power, as required by Article   5 §   3 of the Convention? In particular, did the detention order fulfil the requirement of Article   5 §   3 that the judicial officer gives relevant and sufficient reasons for the detention in addition to the persistence of reasonable suspicion (see for instance Buzadji c. Republic of Moldova   [GC], no   23755/07, §§ 102 and   115-123, 5 July 2016)?   2.     Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pre-trial detention in conformity with Article   5 §   4 of the Convention? In particular, did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his pretrial detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention (see for instance Idalov v. Russia [GC] , 5826/03, § 154, 22   May 2012 ) ?   Application no. 45766/18   3.     Has there been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention due to the applicant’s conditions of detention, considering his medical condition (see, for instance Filippopoulos v. Greece , no. 41800/13, §§ 64-67, 12 November 2015, and the references cited therein; and Kalandia v. Greece , 48684/15, §§   95-97, 6 October 2016)?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?