CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 21 mars 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 40 March 2002 Mouisel v. France (dec.) - 67263/01 Decision 21.3.2002 [Section I] Article 3 Inhuman treatment Continued detention of a person with cancer requiring intensive treatment involving transfer to hospital under escort: admissible The applicant, aged 52, has been in prison since 1996. He was diagnosed in November   1998 as suffering from chronic lymphatic leukaemia. In February 2000 a prison doctor certified that the illness had developed in such a way as to require prolonged anti-cancerous chemotherapy. Chemotherapy greatly reduces the body’s immune defences, making the patient correspondingly more susceptible to illness. As the applicant could not be treated at the prison, he had to be taken to a civil hospital once a week for treatment. He lodged an application for a pardon on medical grounds, which was dismissed. In June 2000 he informed the prison governor that the conditions in which he was taken from the prison (chained) were making his imprisonment intolerable; that the chemotherapy sessions were unendurable; that his physical condition no longer allowed him to attend the sessions; that his morale was deteriorating daily; and that he was therefore obliged to give up the sessions. He complained of additional suffering inflicted on him by the prison staff. Following a further application for a pardon on medical grounds, the Ministry of Justice instructed a medical expert to prepare a report on him. That report noted a deterioration in the applicant’s health and concluded that he should be looked after in a specialised institution. The applicant was transferred to a prison nearer the hospital and given a single cell. In November 2000 a further application for pardon was dismissed. On 22 March 2001 the judge responsible for the execution of sentences released the applicant on parole with the obligation to undergo medical treatment or care until March 2005, the date on which he would have finished serving his sentence, on the ground that his health now prevented him from remaining in prison. Admissible under Article 3: victim status – the decision of the judge responsible for the execution of sentences granting the applicant’s release on parole could not be deemed to be an explicit acknowledgement of an alleged violation of Article 3 during the period complained of by the applicant in connection with his continued imprisonment and the conditions thereof prior to 22 March 2001 and that decision did not provide adequate compensation.   © 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