CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 décembre 2004

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s1EDF3BA6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   634 14.12.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF GELFMANN v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Gelfmann v. France (application no. 25875/03). The Court declared the application admissible and held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Jean-François Gelfmann, is a French national who was born in 1953. He is currently detained in Poissy Prison (France). He suffers from AIDS, which he is believed to have contracted in 1985.   On 26 June 1996 the Alpes-Maritimes Assize Court sentenced him to 21 years’ imprisonment, with ineligibility for parole for 14 years, for murder, attempted murder, abduction and false imprisonment of juveniles aged under 15 and adults and for armed robbery. In addition, on 7 May 1998 the Savoie Assize Court imposed a sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment, with ineligibility for 14 years and eight months, for abduction, subsequent mutilation and murder, and attempted armed robbery. In 2002 those sentences were partially merged and the period of ineligibility was fixed at 20 years.   Mr Gelfmann is currently due to be released on 28 September 2023.   In 2001 the applicant lodged an application for a pardon, which was dismissed on account of his opposition to the preparation of a medical report and his refusal to allow his medical records to be consulted by the doctor appointed for that purpose. In addition, he applied for a stay of execution of his sentence, but refused to be examined by the doctor appointed by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences, so that, in order to draw up his report in December 2002, the doctor was obliged to base his conclusions solely on an examination of the applicant’s medical records. It appears from this doctor’s report that the applicant had contracted additional infections, due largely to his refusal to accept any treatment for a year. Furthermore, the doctor noted that Mr Gelfmann’s chances of survival were compromised, but that his state of health was compatible with continued imprisonment.   The applicant submitted a fresh application for a stay of execution of his sentence in March 2003, as a result of which two new medical reports were ordered. In May 2003 both doctors concluded that the applicant’s chances of survival were in doubt. However, one doctor considered that the applicant was fit to be detained in an ordinary prison under careful medical supervision, while the second concluded that his state of health was incompatible with ordinary detention and required hospitalisation.   In June 2003 the Paris regional parole board ordered a stay of execution of the applicant’s sentence. However, on an appeal by the Principal Public Prosecutor, the national parole board quashed that decision, referring in particular to a psychiatric report which drew attention to the “criminological danger” posed by the applicant.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 6 August 2003. On 16 September 2003 the President of the Chamber decided to deal with it as a priority.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   András Baka (Hungarian), President , Jean-Paul Costa (French), Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Mindia Ugrekhelidze (Georgian), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Danute Jočienė (Lithuanian), judges , and also Sally Dollé , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant considered that the fact of keeping him in prison despite his poor health constituted a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that Article 3 of the Convention could not be construed as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds or to place him or her in a civil hospital, even if he or she suffered from an illness that was particularly difficult to treat.   It noted that Mr Gelfmann did not contest the quality of the care that he received, did not complain about the material conditions of his detention and did not allege that the prison in which he had been placed was unsuited to his state of health and the treatment of his illnesses.   The applicant had suffered from AIDS for more than twenty years, and had contracted several so-called opportunistic infections, which currently appeared to have been treated or to have stabilised, although a recurrence of these illnesses could not of course be ruled out. According to the medical reports, the applicant “was uncooperative” and had refused or interrupted treatment on several occasions, sometimes for long periods. Although all three experts considered that his chances of survival were compromised, they nonetheless disagreed about the compatibility of his state of health and any consequential treatment with imprisonment.   In addition, it appeared from the case file that the authorities were attentive to the applicant’s situation. Thus, he had been hospitalised in June 2003 for assessment following deterioration of his general health. Since additional examinations had failed to indicate any precise cause and the applicant had no intercurrent infections, the hospital had authorised his release. The applicant returned to prison, since the care he received in detention was of the same quality as that which could be provided outside. It also appeared from the case file that, during his current detention in Poissy Prison, the applicant’s health was being monitored in a civil hospital.   Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Court held that neither Mr Gelfmann’s state of health nor his alleged distress were so severe as to amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. In any event, the Court noted that, were his health to deteriorate further, French law provided the national authorities with means of taking action. Consequently, it concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Press contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer. [2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court