CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 juillet 2006

.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 } .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. 88 July-August 2006 Kaja v. Greece - 32927/03 Judgment 27.7.2006 [Section I] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Three months’ detention in a police detention centre not suited to the requirements of continued incarceration: violation   Facts : In February 2002 the applicant, an Albanian national, was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for drug offences. He appealed against the decision and was released. In January 2003 the Salonika Court of Appeal sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment in connection with a separate drug-trafficking offence, and ordered that he be deported as soon as he had served his sentence. The applicant was detained in prison. In July   2003 the Criminal Court, noting that the applicant was eligible for release having served more than half his sentence, ordered his release on condition that he left the country. The applicant was released the same day and was immediately placed in detention in a police detention centre with a view to his deportation. Notwithstanding his appeals and at least one suicide attempt (two according to the applicant), he was held in the police detention centre until October 2003, when he was transferred to prison. There was disagreement between the parties as to the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Larissa police detention centre. The applicant maintained that the detention centre was overcrowded, located in the basement and had no windows, and therefore no natural light or ventilation. He alleged that the premises were dirty and had no beds or sanitary facilities; the detainees slept on the floor, sometimes next to their excrement, and there was nowhere for them to take exercise. In addition, detainees were not fed but were obliged to purchase food from the canteen. The Greek Government denied the allegations. In January 2004 the Court of Appeal determined the aggregate length of the applicant’s sentences. In February 2004 the Indictment Division of the Criminal Court ordered that he be released, on condition that he left Greece and did not return within three years. The applicant was released the same day and was deported the following day. Law : Having regard to the observations made by its delegation following its fact‑finding visit to the police detention centre in the spring of 2006, the Court observed that several of the applicant’s allegations had not been borne out. It considered that the conditions in the centre were acceptable, while noting that it appeared to have been freshly painted and meticulously cleaned in connection with the visit. Nevertheless, the Court considered that the detention centre was not suitable for periods of detention as long as that of the applicant. By its very nature, it was designed to house defendants for short periods, not for a period of three months. The centre possessed certain features liable to produce feelings of isolation among detainees, with no outdoor exercise space, no in-house catering facilities and no radio or television to provide contact with the outside world. While the centre provided conditions which were acceptable for a short period of detention, it was not suited to the requirements of extended periods of imprisonment. In that connection, the Court referred to the recommendations of the CPT (European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) regarding police detention. In the circumstances, the Court considered that the detention of the applicant for three months in the premises in question amounted to degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article   41 – EUR 5,000 for 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