CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 28 mars 2006

.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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   176 28.3.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT MELNIK v. UKRAINE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Melnik v. Ukraine (application no. 72286/01).   The Court held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 10,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 500 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Aleksandr Vasilyevich Melnik, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1961 and is currently serving a prison sentence.   In September 2000 the applicant began serving a five-year sentence of imprisonment after being convicted for drugs offences. Medical examinations at the time that he was taken into custody showed he was in good health. A month later he was transferred to another prison where he did not undergo the mandatory medical examination for possible tuberculosis. In April 2001 he complained to a prison doctor that he was experiencing shortness of breath and was coughing up phlegm. After twice being wrongly diagnosed with lung cancer, in April 2001 he was finally transferred to an tuberculosis hospital for convicts, where, as from June 2001, he was treated for tuberculosis. Since March 2004 he has been diagnosed with clinically-cured tuberculosis.   The applicant maintained that he was detained in dirty overcrowded conditions which he had to share with prisoners who had tuberculosis and AIDS. He claimed that the prisoners had to take it in turns to sleep on metal bunk beds, had no access to daylight and fresh air and were not given adequate food. He also claimed that the special trains used for transporting detainees were overcrowded with no access to daylight and that detainees were not provided with an adequate supply of food and drinking water. The Government contested many of those allegations.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 November 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portuguese), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Antonella Mularoni (San Marinese), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Danute Jočienė (Lithuanian), Dragoljub Popović (citizen of Serbia and Montenegro), judges , and also Stanley Naismith , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that he was subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment. In particular, he alleged that he did not receive the necessary medical treatment and assistance for tuberculosis while serving his sentence. He relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 13 (right to an effective remedy). He also relied on Articles 6 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) and 34 (right of individual petition).   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court noted that the figures submitted by the Government and the applicant on the measurements of the cells in which the applicant was kept suggested that there was 1-2.5 m 2 of space per inmate, which the Court found to be severely overcrowded, particularly in view of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture’s guidelines recommending 7 m 2 per prisoner.   The Court also noted that the applicant’s tuberculosis was not detected until almost two-and-a-half months after he complained about his health problems. It also found that the two incorrect diagnoses confirmed the applicant’s claim as to the inadequacy of the medical care provided, the failure to detect his tuberculosis rapidly, or to isolate and provide him with adequate and timely treatment. Furthermore, he was not given the mandatory check for possible tuberculosis when he was relocated. It also noted that his health only started improving in October 2001 and that the lengthy treatment had led to the applicant suffering from sight impairment and dizziness. All of the above led the Court to the conclusion that the applicant had not been provided with adequate or timely medical care, given the seriousness of the disease and its consequences for his health.   The Court also noted that the applicant’s conditions of hygiene and sanitation were unsatisfactory and would have contributed to the deterioration of his health. It considered such conditions must have caused him considerable mental and physical suffering, diminishing his human dignity and arousing in him such feelings as to cause humiliation and debasement. The Court concluded therefore that the applicant’s detention in overcrowded cells, with no adequate medical care and no satisfactory conditions of hygiene and sanitation, taken together with their duration, amounted to degrading treatment. It therefore held that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13 The Court found that the Government had not shown that it was possible under Ukrainian law for the applicant to complain about the conditions of his detention or that the remedies available to him were effective, i.e. that they could have prevented violations from occurring or continuing, or that they could have afforded the applicant appropriate redress. It therefore concluded that there had been a violation of Article 13.   Articles 6 and 34 The Court declared inadmissible the applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 and 34.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts:   Emma Hellyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15) Stéphanie Klein (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Beverley Jacobs (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)     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.   [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.