CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 juillet 2007

.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 } .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   506 12.7.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT TESTA v. CROATIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Testa v. Croatia (application no. 20877/04).   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.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Ms   Testa 15,000   euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,200 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Ksenija Testa, is a Croatian national who was born in 1965 and is presently serving a prison sentence in Požega Prison.   In April 2001 she was convicted of fraud and sentenced to eight months’ imprisonment by Požega Municipal Court. Ms Testa served the sentence in Požega Prison from 10 January until 29 August 2003, when she was conditionally released. Her conditional release expired on 10 September 2003.   On 22 November 2001 Zagreb Municipal Court convicted the applicant on eight counts of fraud and sentenced her to four years’ imprisonment. She started to serve her sentence on 6 April 2005. She then lodged an application for a retrial, claiming that she had been sentenced twice for the same offence. In April 2006 Zagreb Municipal Court acquitted the applicant on the charge of fraud in respect of which she had already been convicted by Požega Municipal Court, upheld her other convictions of 22 November 2001, and sentenced her to three years’ imprisonment.   The applicant has chronic hepatitis (Hepatitis C) with a very high level of viremia (presence of viruses in the blood) since 1996. People with hepatitis C usually suffer from constant exhaustion; pain in the abdomen, joints and muscles; general sickness and weakness; and often depression. During her first stay in Požega Prison, she was put on a low-calorie diet as a punishment for complaining about the prison conditions. She was first given the job of handling solvent without any protection and made to work full time on shovelling pebbles. As a consequence, she collapsed and was transferred to the prison hospital where she stayed for over two months. She was transferred in a van, accompanied by a driver, a nurse and a policewoman, who took several breaks during which they left the applicant in the closed van, without food or water and with the windows shut. In the hospital she shared a room which had no sanitary facilities with five other inmates.   The applicant also claimed that she did not receive proper medical care during her second stay in Požega Prison.   Inmates were made to work about 15 hours per day. From 12 May to 25 November 2005 she did not work because of her poor health, but later volunteered to work in order to buy vitamins and food. Although a low-fat diet had been prescribed, she was served food cooked in pig fat. She claimed she saw a doctor only once.   She said that Požega Prison consisted of old buildings in a bad state of repair. The walls were damp, windows broken and the heating facilities old and insufficient. She had been put in a cell measuring 12m² with five other inmates. The beds were old and partly broken, and the mattresses were torn and soiled. Before every meal the inmates were lined up in the courtyard regardless of the weather conditions.   The Government submitted that one doctor and three nurses were employed in the prison and provided medical care to the applicant. During her second stay, the applicant was allowed to stop work until she herself had asked to work again. She was also prescribed a special diet and since 5 May 2005 had seen the prison doctor 43 times. They also claimed that the prison conditions were in compliance with the relevant legislation. The applicant had been placed in a high-security unit and assigned to a non-working group on account of her health condition.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 28 April 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .           3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3, Ms   Testa complained about the conditions in Požega Prison, particularly about the lack of adequate medical treatment and check-ups, the inadequate diet   and lack of opportunity to have sufficient rest.   She further complained under Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) about the opening of all her correspondence by the prison authorities and about the supervision of all her telephone calls.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court considered that the applicant had not been provided with appropriate treatment and had not been properly informed about her illness. The Government’s submission that the applicant had seen a prison doctor on 43 occasions was irrelevant, since those visits did not provide her with the medical care and assistance necessary to treat her illness.   Furthermore, although chronic hepatitis was associated with constant exhaustion and reduced physical ability, the applicant had been obliged to line up every day in the prison courtyard. In the Court’s view, such additional hardship placed on the applicant in her state of health had been unnecessary and had gone beyond the inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a legitimate deprivation of liberty.   The Court also noted that the applicant’s allegations that the buildings were old and in a very bad state of repair were corroborated by a Government report submitted to Parliament on 21 December 2006. The applicant’s allegations about the beds were also uncontested by the Government.   In the Court’s view, the lack of requisite medical care and assistance for the applicant’s chronic hepatitis coupled with the prison conditions which the applicant had had to endure for more than two years diminished the applicant’s human dignity and aroused in her feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing her and possibly breaking her physical or moral resistance. Considering that the nature, duration and severity of the ill-treatment to which the applicant was subjected and the cumulative negative effects on her health could qualify as inhuman and degrading treatment, the Court found that there had been a violation of Article 3.   Article 8   The Court noted that Ms Testa did not address the complaint under Article 8 concerning the opening of her correspondence and screening of her telephone conversations to any domestic authority. That complaint was therefore inadmissible.   ***   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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)   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 Convention, 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.