CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 juin 2010

.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 131 June 2010 Gavriliţă v. Romania - 10921/03 Judgment 22.6.2010 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Lack of adequate medical treatment in prison for a period of less than fourteen days: no violation Facts – In October 2000 the applicant was taken into police custody. He was transferred to a detention centre in March 2001. In October 2001 the country court gave him a three-year prison sentence for drug-trafficking and the judgment was upheld by the court of appeal. He was released on licence in April 2003. He complained that he had contracted tuberculosis in the detention centre. Law – Article 3: On his arrival at the detention centre in 2001, the applicant had showed no signs of tuberculosis or any other pulmonary disease. The Court found it probable that he had contracted the tuberculosis at the detention centre. The prison authoritiescarried out systematic tests for tuberculosis on the arrival of each inmate. There was no evidence in the file to show that the applicant had complained to the authorities of the detention centre before March 2003 of health problems that might be symptoms of tuberculosis. As soon as he was diagnosed with tuberculosis, the head doctor at the detention centre recommended his transfer to another detention-centre hospital for specific treatment. However, following his transfer he was only given medication for fever and headaches and it was not until after his release that he received treatment for tuberculosis. Nevertheless, the period during which the applicant had been without adequate medical care had lasted only fourteen days between the date the illness was detected and the date of his release. Moreover, during that period he had nonetheless benefited from treatment for his weak condition. Concerning the conditions of his detention, it could not be concluded that they had been so insalubrious, unhygienic or overcrowded as to have had a negative impact on the applicant’s health or well-being. Conclusion : no violation (five votes to two). (See also Ghavtadze v. Georgia , no.   23204/07, 3   March 2009, Information Note no.   117)   © 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