CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 juillet 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 121 July 2009 Grori v. Albania - 25336/04 Judgment 7.7.2009 [Section IV] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inadequacy of medical treatment provided to high-security prisoner suffering from serious medical condition: violation   Article 5 Article 5-1 Lawful arrest or detention Detention based on principles of international law derived from treaties not yet in force in respondent State: violation   Article 34 Hinder the exercise of the right of petition Failure by State to comply promptly with interim measure intended to prevent irreparable damage: violation   Facts : In February 2001 the applicant, an Albanian national, was convicted in absentia of murder by an Italian court and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Italian authorities issued a warrant for his arrest. In March 2002 they transmitted the judgment sentencing the applicant to life imprisonment to their Albanian counterparts for information purposes only, but did not request its enforcement in Albania as there was no relevant international agreement between the two countries at the time. However, in May 2002 the Albanian prosecuting authorities instituted proceedings against the applicant (who, by then, was already in custody awaiting trial on a separate drug-trafficking charge) for the validation and enforcement of the sentence. On 15 May an Albanian court made an order for the applicant’s detention pending the outcome of the validation proceedings. The applicant contested the proceedings on the grounds that the Italian authorities had not made a request for validation to the Albanian authorities, that there was no relevant international agreement between the countries and that, under domestic law, his consent to validation was required. The Albanian Supreme Court found against him, concluding that where a literal interpretation of the domestic norm (in this instance, the requirement for consent) led to an absurd result, it was legitimate to seek guidance from generally recognised norms of international law and from international treaties, even where they had yet to be ratified by Albania. Following that approach, it found that the requirement for consent related solely to the issue of where the sentence was to be served and did not constitute an obstacle to the validation of the foreign judgment. The Constitutional Court upheld that decision. The applicant was given a fifteen-year sentence by the Albanian courts on the separate drug-trafficking charge on 29 December 2003. From September 2003 onwards the applicant made repeated requests for a medical examination because of a deterioration in his health. In August 2004 he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis and advised that, even with treatment, his disease was capable of causing shock, organ damage, permanent disability or death. His health continued to decline and his representatives asked for him to be examined by a specialist neurologist. However, as he was in a high-security prison, the approval of the prosecuting authority had to be obtained and he was not admitted to the prison hospital until April 2005. The doctors confirmed the diagnosis and prescribed treatment with interferon-beta. The prison authorities, however, gave him vitamins and anti-depressants instead. In 2006 the doctors noted that the applicant was continuing to deteriorate, mainly as a result of the lack of treatment, which they described as life-threatening. On 10   January 2008, the Court issued an interim measure under Rule 39 requiring his immediate transfer to a civilian hospital for examination and appropriate treatment. He was transferred on 28 January 2008. Law : Article 3 – The applicant complained of inadequate medical care. The Court noted that evidence from various medical sources confirmed that he had several serious medical problems requiring regular medical care, which he had not received. Indeed, the 2006 medical report had confirmed that his disease had progressed as a result of the lack of proper care. Even while in the prison hospital, the applicant had clearly suffered from the physical effects of his condition. As to the mental effects, he must have known that he risked a serious medical emergency at any time without qualified medical assistance being available. The fact that he was held under a high-security regime with no contact with his representatives must have added to his anxiety and it was alarming that it had been left to the discretion of the prosecutor, not the doctors, to decide whether he needed additional medical examinations. Nor could the Court accept the Government’s argument that his treatment with the interferon-beta his doctors had prescribed would place a huge burden on the State budget, as the drug was available free of charge in hospitals and there was no legitimate reason why the applicant should have been treated differently from other members of the public. He suffered from a very serious disease, multiple sclerosis, that was capable of causing disability and death. The risk of the disease, associated with the lack of adequate medical treatment and the length of his prison term, had served to intensify his fears. In these circumstances the absence of timely medical assistance, added to the authorities’ refusal to offer him the prescribed medical treatment, had created a strong feeling of insecurity which, combined with his physical suffering, had amounted to degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 5 § 1 – In his application to the Court, the applicant complained that his detention pending the outcome of the validation proceedings was unlawful. The Court noted that the Supreme Court, in reasoning that was upheld by the Constitutional Court, had decided to disregard the provisions of domestic law requiring the convicted person’s consent to the imposition of a foreign sentence. Instead, it had found that the law was inadequate and that a legal basis for the detention could be provided by generally recognised norms of international law. In so doing, it had imported into domestic law provisions of international-law instruments which had yet to enter into force in Albania. Such a legal basis for the detention and the conversion of the sentence imposed by the Italian courts could scarcely be said to have met the qualitative components of the “lawfulness” requirement. Accordingly, the applicant’s detention from 15 May 2002 (when the order was made) to 29 December 2003 (when the applicant was convicted of the drug-trafficking charge) had not been in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 34 – Despite having become aware at the latest on 11 January 2008 of the interim measure issued by the Court, the domestic authorities had not transferred the applicant to hospital until 28 January, some seventeen days later. No acceptable explanation had been provided for their failure to take immediate action to comply with a measure that was intended to prevent irreparable damage. Although the Government had claimed that time had been needed to adopt security measures and to arrange for coordination among the various institutions concerned, no concrete action had been taken until 24 January. The fact that the applicant had been responsible for a delay of at most three days and that his condition following the transfer suggested that the risk had not been as serious as previously thought did not alter the position. There had, therefore, been no objective justification for the failure to comply with the interim measure. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41 – EUR 8,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © 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