CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 septembre 2010

.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. 133 August-September 2010 Florea v. Romania - 37186/03 Judgment 14.9.2010 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Passive smoking in prison: violation   Facts – In 2002 the applicant, who suffered from chronic hepatitis and arterial hypertension, was imprisoned. For approximately nine months he shared a cell with between 110 and 120   other prisoners, with only 35   beds. According to the applicant, 90% of his cellmates were smokers. In response to his complaints the Ministry of Justice acknowledged that due to overcrowding two prisoners sometimes had to share a bed and that it was not possible to separate smoking and non-smoking prisoners. Due to his worsening health, the applicant spent three periods in the prison hospital, where he was also in the company of smokers. A medical report dated January 2005 found that he was suffering from a number of disorders and should avoid tobacco smoke. He was granted conditional release in February 2005. In the meantime he had lodged a claim for compensation alleging that the deterioration in his health had been caused by passive smoking and his poor conditions of detention. The court rejected his claim in 2006, finding that no causal link had been established between his health problems and the conditions in which he had been detained. Law – Article 3: (a) Overcrowding – The Court required as a general rule that prisoners should have at least 3   sq. m. of personal space. The applicant had been guaranteed an average of 2   sq. m. under the legislation prior to 2006. The Ministry of Justice and the domestic courts had acknowledged that overcrowding in prisons represented a systemic problem. Hence, for approximately three years the applicant had lived in extremely cramped conditions, with an area of personal space falling below the European standard. The Court noted that, in the meantime, the standard for personal space in communal cells in Romania had been increased to 4   sq. m. per prisoner. (b)     Other factors – The lack of space of which the applicant complained appeared to have been aggravated by the fact that he had been confined for twenty-three hours a day to a cell which was used for both sleeping and eating, in deplorable conditions of hygiene. As to the fact that he had to share a cell and a hospital ward with prisoners who smoked, no consensus existed among the member States of the Council of Europe with regard to protection against passive smoking in prisons. The fact remained that the applicant, unlike the applicants in some other cases, had never had an individual cell and had had to tolerate his fellow prisoners’ smoking even in the prison infirmary and the prison hospital, against his doctor’s advice. However, a law in force since June 2002 prohibited smoking in hospitals and the domestic courts had frequently ruled that smokers and non-smokers should be detained separately. It followed that the conditions of detention to which the applicant had been subjected had exceeded the threshold of severity required by Article   3. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 10,000 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