CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 5 octobre 2017

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 211 October 2017 Ābele v. Latvia - 60429/12 and 72760/12 Judgment 5.10.2017 [Section V] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Conditions of detention of deaf and mute prisoner: violation Facts – The applicant, who was mute and deaf since birth, complained of the conditions in which he was detained during part of his prison sentence. In particular, he alleged that he had been held for a total of roughly five years in cells in which he had reduced personal space of just under or just over 3   square metres and that, owing to his disability, he had been unable to communicate with fellow inmates or prison staff. Law – Article 3: In addition to considering the material conditions and length of the applicant’s detention, the Court also had to take into account his vulnerable position due to his disability and the fact that the authorities were required to demonstrate special care in guaranteeing conditions corresponding to his disability. (a)     Period in which applicant disposed of less than 3   sq.   m of personal space – The applicant had disposed of less than 3   sq.   m of personal space for over a year. Such a period could not be regarded as “short, occasional and minor” and therefore could not rebut the presumption of a violation of Article   3. The applicant had been subjected to hardship going beyond the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and amounting to degrading treatment. (b)     Period in which the applicant was allocated between 3 and 4   sq.   m of personal space – The applicant had disposed of just over 3   sq.   m. of personal space in two different cells for a period of almost two years. He complained that the reduced personal space coupled with his disability had left him feeling particularly vulnerable and socially isolated as he was unable to engage in any meaningful activities and was not properly understood by either the prison staff or fellow inmates. The Court noted that while the applicant had been allowed to leave one of the cells (where he was held for eight months) during the day and use the common area, the same did not hold true of the other cell, where he had been held for twice as long and for about twenty-three hours a day unable, in view of his disability, to communicate with his fellow inmates. Throughout his time in these two cells the applicant was not provided with a hearing aid or any particular means of communicating with prison staff. In the Court’s view, the weighty factor of the reduced personal space available to the applicant for a period of almost two years, together with the inevitable feeling of isolation and helplessness in the absence of adequate attempts to overcome his communication problems flowing from his disability, must have caused the applicant to experience anguish and feelings of inferiority attaining the threshold of inhuman and degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 7,500 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also Jasinskis v.   Latvia , 45744/08, 21   December 2010, Information Note 136 ; and Z.H. v.   Hungary , 28973/11, 8   November 2012, Information Note 157 ; and, more generally, Ananyev and Others v.   Russia , 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10   January 2012, Information Note 148 ; and Muršić v.   Croatia [GC], 7334/13, 20   October 2016, Information Note   200 )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes