CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 juin 2011

.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. 142 June 2011 Csüllög v. Hungary - 30042/08 Judgment 7.6.2011 [Section II] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Protracted solitary confinement in inadequate prison conditions: violation   Facts – In 2006 the applicant was convicted of conspiracy to murder and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He was detained in a special security cell as the authorities suspected he was planning an escape. As a result, he had almost no human contact for a period of nearly two years and was never informed why he was being kept separately from the other inmates. The applicant submitted that there was only artificial light in his cell, the ventilation was insufficient, the toilet had neither a seat nor a cover and he had had to endure body cavity searches on a daily basis. In addition, he was always handcuffed when outside his cell, was not permitted to keep items such as a watch, pen, comb, plastic cutlery, teabags or stationery and was only allowed a limited number of books or newspapers. The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, which replied that they were not entitled to intervene and that all the measures taken by the prison authorities had had a proper legal basis. The applicant was released in February 2009 after serving his sentence. Law – Article 3: Even though the applicant’s isolation was partial and relative, given the likely negative effects on an inmate’s personality, it could only be considered appropriate if applied exceptionally and temporarily. Furthermore, several of the restrictive measures applied to the applicant – such as for example the prohibition on possessing a watch or teabags or the restriction on the number of books kept in the cell – could not have reasonably been related to the purported objective of the isolation, namely to frustrate any attempt to escape. Moreover, there were no security reasons for constantly handcuffing the applicant every time he was outside his cell: nothing indicated that he would incite disorder in the prison and there was no evidence that the measure was applied on the grounds that he represented a security risk to other prisoners, the prison staff or himself. Finally, the authorities had failed to give any substantive reasons for imposing or extending the solitary confinement in the applicant’s case. The impugned restriction must therefore have been perceived as arbitrary and instilled in the applicant feelings of subordination, powerlessness and humiliation. The authorities did not apply any measures to counter the negative effects of protracted solitary confinement on his physical and mental condition. Open-air stays or sport opportunities of limited availability could not in the circumstances be considered capable of remedying those negative effects, especially since all the applicant’s movements entailed him being handcuffed in an otherwise secure environment. In sum, the cumulative effects of the stringent custodial regime to which the applicant was subjected for an extended period of time and the material conditions in which he was detained must have caused him suffering which exceeded the unavoidable level inherent in detention. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 13: Without proper information about the reasons for applying a strict security regime to the applicant, or any other prisoner for that matter, the prosecution authorities could not review or challenge the decisions of the prison authorities to impose it. Thus, although independent, the prosecutor lacked the power to overturn prison authority decisions relating to special security measures for prisoners. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 6,000 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