CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 mars 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 } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .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. 84 March 2006 Melnik v. Ukraine - 72286/01 Judgment 28.3.2006 [Section II] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Prisoner suffering from tuberculosis wrongly diagnosed and kept in inadequate conditions: violation   Facts : In September 2000 the applicant began serving a five-year sentence of imprisonment after being convicted of drugs offences. Medical examinations at the time that he was taken into custody showed that he was in good health. A month later he was transferred to another prison where he did not undergo the mandatory medical examination for possible tuberculosis. In April 2001 he complained to a prison doctor that he was experiencing shortness of breath and was coughing up phlegm. After twice being wrongly diagnosed with lung cancer, he was finally transferred to a tuberculosis hospital for convicts, where, as from June 2001, he was treated for tuberculosis. Since March 2004 he has been diagnosed with clinically‑cured tuberculosis. Before the Court the applicant complained, in particular, that he had not received the necessary medical treatment and assistance for tuberculosis. He maintained that he had been detained in dirty overcrowded conditions which he had to share with prisoners suffering from tuberculosis and AIDS. He claimed that the prisoners had been obliged to take turns to sleep on metal bunk beds, had been deprived of access to daylight and fresh air and had not been given adequate food. Moreover, the special trains used for transporting detainees had been overcrowded, with no access to daylight, and detainees had not been provided with an adequate supply of food and drinking water. The Government contested many of these allegations.   Law : Article   3: The Court noted that the figures submitted by the Government and the applicant on the measurements of the cells in which he had been kept suggested that there had been 1-2.5 m 2 of space per inmate, which the Court found to be severely overcrowded, particularly in view of the guidelines of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (“CPT”) which recommend 7 m 2 per prisoner. Moreover, the applicant’s tuberculosis had not been detected until almost two-and-a-half months after he had complained about his health problems. The two incorrect diagnoses confirmed the applicant’s claim as to the inadequacy of the medical care provided, the failure to detect his tuberculosis rapidly, or to isolate and provide him with adequate and timely treatment. Furthermore, he had not been given the mandatory check for possible tuberculosis when he had been relocated. His health had started to improve only in October 2001 and his lengthy treatment had made him suffer from sight impairment and dizziness. In conclusion, the applicant had not been provided with adequate or timely medical care, given the seriousness of the disease and its consequences for his health. The Court also noted that the applicant’s conditions of hygiene and sanitation had been unsatisfactory and had contributed to the deterioration of his health. Such conditions must have caused him considerable mental and physical suffering, diminishing his human dignity and arousing in him such feelings as to cause humiliation and debasement. The Court concluded therefore that the applicant’s detention in overcrowded cells, with no adequate medical care and no satisfactory conditions of hygiene and sanitation, taken together with their duration, had amounted to degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   Article   13: The Government had not shown that it was possible under Ukrainian law for the applicant to complain about the conditions of his detention or that the remedies available to him were effective, that is to say that they could have prevented violations from occurring or continuing, or that they could have afforded the applicant appropriate redress. Conclusion : violation (unanimously).   Article   41: The Court awarded the applicant EUR 10,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage and a certain amount for costs and expenses.   © 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