CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 4 mai 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 } .sD711EC90 { margin-left:31.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   257 4.5.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KADIĶIS v. LATVIA (No. 2)   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kadiķis v. Latvia (No. 2) (application no. 62393/00).   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 7,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Arnis Kadiķis, is a 52-year-old Latvian national who lives in Alsunga (Latvia).   In April 2000 the applicant was sentenced to 15 days’ “administrative detention” ( administratīvais arests ) for contempt of court, which is not classified as a criminal offence under Latvian law and is governed by the Administrative Offences Code.   In execution of that order the applicant was arrested on 28 April 2000 and immediately detained in the temporary isolation unit at the local police headquarters of the Liepāja State police, where he was to serve his sentence. He remained there until his release on 13 May 2000.   The parties disagreed as to the conditions of the applicant’s detention during that period.   The applicant complained of the conditions of his detention, pointing to the following aspects in particular:   his six-square-metre cell regularly held four or five detainees; the cell was poorly ventilated (the fan was often turned off) and had poor lighting, the only light-source being a bedside lamp placed in a niche above the door and left on day and night; there was no outdoor exercise, such that for the 15-day period of his detention he was unable either to see daylight or to breathe fresh air; the sleeping deck had absolutely no bedding, not even a mattress or blankets, and the prisoners were forced to sleep fully clothed on the bare boards; he was only allowed to go to the toilet three times a day and to satisfy an urgent need he had to make do with a bottle and a plastic bowl; his friends and relatives were allowed on only one occasion to send him items of personal hygiene or clothing.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 31 October 2000 and declared partly admissible on 25 September 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , John Hedigan (Irish), Lucius Caflisch (Swiss) [2] , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), judges , and also Vincent Berger , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   The applicant alleged that the conditions of his detention in the temporary isolation unit during the period from 28 April to 13 May 2000 constituted treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention. He also complained that, under Latvian law, he had had no effective remedy by which to seek redress for his Article 3 complaint, in breach of Article 13.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that the cell in which the applicant had been held measured 6 sq. m. In this connection it pointed out that the CPT (European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment) had recommended 7 sq. m per person as the approximate minimum surface area desirable for a detention cell. Moreover, the parties agreed that over half of the cell had been taken up by a sleeping deck, with the result that the space left for free movement had only been about 2.5 sq. m. Since four or five detainees were usually held in the cell during the applicant’s detention, each person had had an area of between 1.2 and 1.5 sq. m, or even between 0.5 and 0.6 sq. m. if only the free space was counted. In the Court’s view, such overcrowding in itself raised a serious problem under Article 3 of the Convention.   The Court then noted that the cell had been devoid of natural lighting, such that its occupants could never see daylight. In addition, despite the large number of detainees held in the cell, the ventilation system had not worked properly and had often been turned off.   Furthermore, the Government did not deny the fact that there had been no provisions for outdoor exercise and that, except for a few brief visits to the toilets or washrooms, the applicant had never been able to leave his overcrowded cell, let alone go outside to breathe fresh air and stretch his legs.   Similarly, the parties agreed that the applicant had not had a bed or an individual bunk and that he had been obliged to share with the other detainees a wooden deck without bedding, where they would sleep fully clothed on the bare boards. The size of the deck (2.1 by 1.7 metres) had provided very limited sleeping space and forced detainees to lie against each other when five of them were using it.   Moreover, the Court considered that the authorities’ obligation to provide for the health and general well-being of detainees implied, among other things, that they should be fed properly. But during his detention the applicant had only received one proper meal per day and had received neither breakfast in the morning nor dinner in the evening. Even though the Government had explained that detainees had been given additional bread for the rest of the day, the Court doubted that that could be regarded as sufficient to meet essential bodily needs over a period of 15 days. In that connection it was noteworthy that detainees had not been allowed to receive any food from outside sources.   Lastly, the Court noted that there had been no drinking water, and more generally no running water, in the applicant’s cell. It appeared that he had only been able to obtain drinking water when he visited the toilets or washrooms, notwithstanding the heat of which he complained.   In conclusion, the Court observed that, during his detention, the applicant had been confined to a very limited space where there was a severe problem of overcrowding and a stifling atmosphere, with no natural light and often no fresh air, without any possibility to go out other than to visit the washrooms or toilets and having no bed, obliging him to sleep fully clothed on bare boards with the other detainees. In addition, he had not been properly fed and undoubtedly had not had enough to drink. Whilst there was no evidence of any intention on the part of the Latvian authorities to humiliate or degrade the applicant, his detention for 15 days in such conditions could not but offend his dignity and make him feel humiliated and degraded. That was sufficient for the Court to conclude that the treatment inflicted on the applicant constituted “degrading treatment” within the meaning of Article 3.   Article 13   The Court then observed that Latvian law contained no express provision for a remedy against the conditions of administrative detention. Considering that the applicant had had no effective remedy by which to complain of the conditions of his detention, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 13.   ***   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. [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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.