CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 20 avril 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. 129 April 2010 Slyusarev v. Russia - 60333/00 Judgment 20.4.2010 [Section III] Article 3 Degrading treatment Failure to provide detainee with defective eyesight with glasses: violation   Facts – The applicant was arrested in July 1998 on suspicion of armed robbery. At some point during the arrest, his glasses were damaged. They were subsequently confiscated by the police. According to the applicant, although both he and his wife made several requests for their return, he did not recover his glasses until December 1998. In the interim, following an order by the competent prosecutor, he had been examined by an ophthalmologist in September 1998, who had concluded that his eyesight had deteriorated and prescribed new glasses, which the applicant received in January 1999. Law – Article 3: The applicant suffered from medium-severity myopia. Accordingly, being without his glasses for several months must have caused him considerable distress in his everyday life and given rise to feelings of insecurity and helplessness. Although the Government had maintained that it had not been until early December 1998 that the applicant had requested the return of his glasses, the investigative authorities seemed to have been aware of the applicant’s eyesight problems well before then, since they had given instructions in September for him to be examined by an ophthalmologist. The applicant’s wife had also requested the return of his old glasses. Notwithstanding their awareness of his problems with his eyesight, it had taken the authorities two and a half months to return the glasses. Nor had the Government explained why, after the ophthalmologist had prescribed new glasses, it had taken another two and a half months to provide him with a pair. In conclusion, the treatment complained of had to a large extent been attributable to the authorities and, given the degree of suffering it had caused and its duration, had been degrading. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: No claim made in respect of 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