CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 octobre 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 } .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 } .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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   580 12.10.2006   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DVOYNYKH v. UKRAINE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Dvoynykh v. Ukraine (application no. 72277/01).   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 concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention from 23 March until 1 December 2000; and, a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) the Court awarded the applicant 2,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage and EUR 100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Nikolay Aleksandrovich Dvoynykh, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Simferopol (Ukraine). He was the director of a company.   On 23 March 2000 the applicant was arrested and charged with theft and abuse of power. The next day he was transferred to the Simferopol SIZO Detention Centre. In July 2000 he was found guilty of aggravated theft and abuse of power, and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. The Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea subsequently released the applicant from serving his prison sentence on the ground that he suffered from vascular diseases and that he did not pose a danger to society. He was released on 1   December   2000.   The applicant stated that he was detained in cells of roughly 14 square metres, which were occupied by 16-17 inmates at the same time, some of whom suffered from tuberculosis and AIDS. He alleged that they took turns sleeping because there were not enough beds and he also complained that light and fresh air was kept out by the shutters on the small windows, while the electric light was inadequate and was on all the time. The cells were dirty and infested with cockroaches and bedbugs. There was no access to hot water in any of the cells and no cold water in the cells above the fourth floor. There was also no heating in the cells.   He also maintained that daily walks were limited to 35-40 minutes in an outside area no larger than a cell. The applicant also stated that he was not able to purchase medicines or enough food from outside of the SIZO and that the quality of food provided in the SIZO had been unsatisfactory.     2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 January 2001 and declared partly admissible on 3 May 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Volodymyr Butkevych (Ukrainian), Margarita Tsatsa-Nikolovska (citizen of “The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Javier Borrego Borrego (Spanish), Renate Jaeger (German), Mark Villiger (Swiss), judges , and also Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that he had been detained in inhuman and degrading conditions. He relied on Articles 3 and 13.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 The Court noted that some of the applicant’s allegations concerning the conditions of his detention, in particular, those about overcrowded cells, the bedding and conditions of hygiene, sanitation and ventilation, outdoor daily walks, access to natural light and air, were supported by the findings made by the Council of Europe’s Committee For The Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment and Punishment following its visit to the Simferopol SIZO in September 2000, when the applicant was serving his sentence there and provide, to some degree, a reliable basis for the assessment of the conditions of the applicant’s detention between March and December 2000.   Although the Government contested the applicant’s submissions with regard to the size of the cells, the figures provided by the Government suggest that, at any given time, there was 1.3-2.25 square meters of space per inmate in the applicant’s cells. Thus, in the Court’s view, the cells were continuously, severely overcrowded. The Court recalled that that fact alone was enough to raise an issue under Article 3.   That situation was aggravated by the fact that the applicant was confined to those overcrowded cells for around 23 hours a day without adequate ventilation and natural light. The Court also noted that the applicant had to take turns sleeping and was not provided with adequate amounts of personal hygiene and cleaning products. Taking into account those factors, the Court considered that the applicant’s conditions of detention for more than eight months 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. It therefore concluded that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the Simferopol SIZO amounted to degrading treatment and held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 13 Finding that the applicant did not have an effective domestic remedy to redress the damage caused by the conditions of his detention, the Court held unanimously that there had also been a breach 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] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.