CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 27 janvier 2005

.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. 71 January 2005 Narcisio v. the Netherlands (dec.) - 47810/99 Decision 27.1.2005 [Section III] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Transfer to a prison in the Netherlands Antilles and conditions of detention in that prison alleged to be unacceptable: inadmissible   An order for the applicant’s detention on remand in Curaçao was issued by an investigating judge in that territory in 1998, on murder and firearms charges. The applicant was arrested in Rotterdam on 21 January 1999. The following day his lawyer requested the Minister of Justice and public prosecutor not to deport the applicant and enable him to undergo his detention on remand in the Netherlands. On 25 January the applicant was flown to the Netherlands Antilles. Prior to his detention in the centre, he spent 23 days in a police cell. The applicant complains that his transportation to Curaçao for the purpose of his detention in that centre breached Articles 3 and 8 and exposed him to unacceptable conditions of detention as he was deprived of basic necessities such as access to running water and proper sanitary facilities. The conditions of detention in this centre have been examined on four occasions by the CPT (Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) delegations. In the reports of 1994 and 1997, it was concluded that the conditions in the centre did in fact amount to “inhuman and degrading treatment”. In the 1999 and 2002 reports by the CPT it was noted that a number of improvements had been made at the centre, despite a prevailing high level of violence at the prison. Inadmissible under Article 3. The Government’s objection (non-exhaustion): the Court could not exclude that the applicant might have made use of summary civil proceedings to prevent his transfer. However, it dispensed itself from speculating on this point and did not declare the application inadmissible on this ground. The CPT visit to the prison in 1999, shortly before the applicant’s arrival there, mentioned some changes for the better. In 2002, further material improvements at the centre were noted, despite the remaining problem of inter-prisoner violence. In the absence of any specific complaints from the applicant on the prevailing level of aggression, it would seem he was not troubled by the violent excesses described in the CPT reports. The lack of access to running water and sanitary facilities complained of cannot be considered of sufficient severity to bring within the scope of Article 3: manifestly ill-founded. Inadmissible under Article 8: no distinct issues arose from those already discussed under Article 3: manifestly ill-founded.   © 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