CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 23 février 2012

.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 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2D3BC823 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 149 February 2012 G. v. France - 27244/09 Judgment 23.2.2012 [Section V] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Repeated transfers, over four-year period, of schizophrenic prisoner to and from psychiatric hospital: violation   Facts – The applicant suffers from a chronic schizophrenic-type psychotic disorder and is currently being held in a specialist hospital. Between 1996 and 2004 he was alternately in prison and in a psychiatric facility. In May 2005 he was imprisoned after he had caused damage in a psychiatric hospital. In August 2005, after he had set his mattress alight, a fire broke out in the cell he was sharing with another inmate. The latter died four months later from his injuries. In October 2005 the applicant was placed under judicial investigation and taken into pre-trial detention. His lawyer requested the applicant’s release, arguing that his client should be in hospital rather than in prison, but the investigating judge refused the request. In February 2007 the applicant was committed for trial before the assize court. That year and the following year he was admitted on several occasions to the regional psychiatric unit in the prison where he was being detained, and was also compulsorily admitted a number of times to a specialist hospital. In November 2008 a psychiatric report ordered by the president of the assize court concluded that, despite the severity of his disorder, the applicant was fit to stand trial. In a judgment given in November 2008 the assize court sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. Following the judgment the applicant was taken back to the regional psychiatric unit. In December 2008 the prefect ordered his compulsory admission to hospital; the order remained in place for three months. The applicant was subsequently placed twice in the regional psychiatric unit. When submitting a further application for release he complained that his constant moves back and forth between prison and hospital amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and that his return to prison constituted a form of torture. In a judgment of September 2009 the assize court, ruling on appeal, found that the applicant lacked criminal responsibility and ordered his compulsory admission to a specialist hospital. Law – Article 3: The seriousness of the applicant’s condition was not disputed. He suffered from a chronic schizophrenic-type psychotic disorder which required continuous treatment and was known to entail a high risk of suicide. While in detention he had suffered frequent relapses, as demonstrated by his compulsory admission to hospital on numerous occasions. The Court had previously held that the suffering associated with relapses in the case of patients with schizophrenia could in principle fall within the scope of Article3 of the Convention[1]. In the present case the Court observed that the applicant had received medical treatment and care throughout his four years in detention. His compulsory admission to hospital had also been ordered during the many periods when his state of anxiety had been incompatible with detention. While the applicant’s periodic admissions had prevented incidents that might have endangered his physical and mental safety and the safety of others, his extreme vulnerability had called for measures to be taken that would not aggravate his mental state. His numerous moves between ordinary prison and hospital had prevented that aim from being achieved. The Court was struck first of all by the applicant’s frequent admissions to hospital, which highlighted the serious and chronic nature of his psychiatric disorder. In such circumstances, no purpose had been served by the alternation of periods in the specialist hospital, which had been too short and haphazard, with periods in prison, which had been incomprehensible to and distressing for the applicant. This alternation had clearly impeded the stabilisation of his condition, demonstrating that he had been unfit to be detained from the standpoint of Article   3. Secondly, the Court observed that the physical conditions of detention in the prison psychiatric unit, where the applicant had been held on several occasions, had been severely criticised by the domestic authorities. Combined with the hardship of prison life, those conditions could only have exacerbated his feelings of distress, anxiety and fear. While acknowledging the efforts made by the authorities to treat the applicant’s psychiatric disorder, and the difficulty of arranging care for mentally ill prisoners, the Court considered, in view of all these factors, that the applicant’s continued detention in the conditions complained of over quite a long period, from 2005 to 2009, had made it more difficult to provide him with the medical treatment his psychiatric condition required and had subjected him to hardship exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention. Accordingly, the Court held that the applicant had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also pointed out that, under the 2006 European Prison Rules [2], prisoners suffering from serious mental illness had to be kept and cared for in a hospital facility which was adequately equipped and possessed appropriately trained staff ((see Sławomir Musiał v. Poland , no.   28300/06, 20   January 2009, Information Note no.   115 ). The Court further held, unanimously, that the applicant’s trial had not been in breach of Article 6 §   1 of the Convention. Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. [1] See Bensaid v.   the United Kingdom , no.   44599/98, 6   February 2001, Information Note no.   27 . [2] Recommendation Rec(2006)2 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the European Prison Rules, adopted on 11   January 2006.   © 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