CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 7 novembre 2002

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 47 November 2002 Matencio v. France (dec.) - 58749/00 Decision 7.11.2002 [Section I] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Alleged insufficiency of medical care during detention: admissible The applicant had been serving a life sentence since 1976. In 1995, he was the victim of a cerebral vascular accident of which he retained the physical sequelae. In 1997, he was recognized as having a rate of incapacity of 80%. In 1999, the Consultation and Ambulatory Care Unit of the prison noted that the applicant's health was becoming worse, that he would need daily medical treatment for the rest of his life and that it was difficult for the Unit to treat that pathology. In January 2000, the Unit recommended that the applicant be given more intensive multi-disciplinary care. The application for release on health grounds which the applicant submitted during that month was unsuccessful. In June 2000, the International Prisons Observatory referred the applicant's case to the Inspectorate General for Social Matters. The opinion of the Medical inspector for Public Health was sought in order to examine the conditions in which the applicant was being treated. The Prison Governor stated that he had sought a solution which would provide the applicant received permanent medical attention. The applicant had agreed to be transferred to a remand prison in Paris where a doctor would be in permanent attendance, both day and night, and that an undertaking had been obtained that the applicant would be kept in an individual cell. The applicant refused that offer, on the ground that he was at present linked by an alarm with the sanatorium and the central post both day and night. The International Prisons Observatory requested the Ministry of Justice to commute the penalty on medical grounds. On the same date, the judge responsible for the execution of penalties was requested to take emergency steps to allow the applicant to receive hospital treatment necessitated by his health outside the prison. At the end of 2000, the prison Consultation and Ambulatory Care Unit recorded that the applicant's standard of living was being disrupted on a daily basis by the fact that his cell was inappropriate and also by the fact that his handicap could not be given the best treatment in the Unit; likewise, it was indispensable that the applicant was able to receive certain regular and appropriate care which was only available outside the prison. In February 2001, the applicant was admitted to hospital as an emergency case. In August 2001, a new medical certificate stated that his health had deteriorated, although there had been temporary improvements. From December 2001, the applicant was granted provisional release, following a decision which noted the need for him to receive treatment already provided but which would no longer be beneficial to him in a prison environment. Admissible under Articles 2 and 3.   © 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