CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 8 novembre 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 } .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 } .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   757 8.11.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT ŠTITIĆ v. CROATIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Štitić v. Croatia (application no. 29660/03).   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 Mr Štitić’s detention in a high-security prison unit; no violation of Article 3 concerning the alleged lack of adequate medical assistance; no violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence) of the Convention; and, a violation of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).   The Court made no award under Article 41 (just satisfaction), as Mr Štitić had not submitted a claim. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Vladimir Štitić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1967 and is currently in Šibenik Prison (Croatia).   In November 2002, following a series of criminal convictions for drug abuse, he was sent first to Lepoglava State Prison and then, in July 2004, to Gospić Prison. The case mainly concerned his detention conditions.   The Croatian Government stated that the applicant was held in a high security unit (Unit 2) in Gospić Prison, from 24 September 2004 to November 2005 (and then again from 17 March 2006 to May 2006), in a cell measuring 3.75m x 3.5m, with sanitary facilities measuring 2m x 1.6m, which he shared with another inmate. He was locked in his cell except for one hour every morning when he was allowed to go out in the courtyard and for two hours, between 8 and 10 p.m., when he was allowed to watch television, read or play games in a common room.   According to the applicant, Unit 2 was very damp, and the mattresses in the cells so old and torn that bare wire stuck out. The bed sheets and pillowcase were dirty and the blankets old and foul smelling. There was no natural light and he was alone in his cell 21 hours a day. He was allowed two one-hour walks and one hour of exercise in a gym per day, without contact with other prisoners. He had no regular access to a bathroom or running water and his access to sanitary facilities was left to the discretion of the prison guards. The heating was inadequate and the food of low quality. No toiletries were provided and there was no permanent duty doctor.   In September and October 2004 the applicant complained twice to a Gospić County Court judge about the prison conditions and also alleged that his post had been intercepted; that he had not received a parcel from his parents and that various letters he had written had not been delivered. The judge replied that he had no jurisdiction to deal with the complaints about prison conditions and that the Gospić Prison authorities had informed him that all the applicant’s letters had been properly forwarded.   On 2 November 2004 the applicant was subjected to disciplinary measures, having been found to have attempted to smuggle illegal drugs into the prison; his movements within the prison and contact with the outside world (including the receipt of parcels) were restricted for three months. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed, claiming that he had not attended the final hearing before the prison disciplinary authorities because his lawyer had not been present and that the notes of that hearing had not been served on him.   On 17 March 2005 the applicant was injured by another prisoner. According to the applicant, he was taken to a doctor who prescribed painkillers and refused his request for an X-ray. According to the Government, the applicant was seen by the prison doctor the same day and the following day and was prescribed painkillers. Following the applicant's further complaints of backache, he was taken to hospital, seen by a specialist and X-rayed. No fractures were identified. The applicant was then prescribed further painkillers.   Following the incident of 17 March 2006, the applicant was again subjected to disciplinary measures; seven days' solitary confinement suspended for three months. His appeal was dismissed and he received no response to his additional complaint that the medical assistance provided had been insufficient.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 1 September 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Elisabeth Steiner (Austrian), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar . 3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Mr Štitić complained: that the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him were unfair, that the conditions in Gospić Prison were degrading, that he did not have adequate medical care, that he did not receive a parcel from his parents and that his letters were not sent out. He relied on Articles 3, 6 § 1, 8 and 13.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Concerning the applicant’s detention conditions in Unit 2 of Gospić Prison The Court did not find it necessary to verify individually each of the applicant’s complaints about his detention conditions as it found a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts    which were presented by or undisputed by the Croatian Government. From 29 September 2004 until November 2005 and again from March to May 2006, the applicant was held in Unit 2 of Gospić Prison where he was locked in a cell with another inmate for around 21 hours a day. The Government did not dispute the applicant's allegations about the cell being very damp, the mattresses old, the heating inadequate and the cell devoid of natural light. It was also undisputed that the applicant received no toiletries.   The Court accepted that there was no indication that there was a positive intention to humiliate or debase the applicant. However, the Court found his detention conditions, in particular the fact that he had been locked in a damp cell with no access to natural light for about 20 hours a day, must have had a detrimental effect on the applicant's well-being and that those conditions, combined with the length of the period during which the applicant was detained in such conditions (15 months), amounted to degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3.   Concerning the alleged lack of adequate medical assistance The Court observed that the medical records submitted showed that the applicant saw a prison doctor the day he was injured by another prisoner and that the doctor prescribed painkillers, that he was seen again by the doctor the next day and, on 20 March 2005, taken to hospital. The record clearly showed that an X-ray was carried out and that it revealed no fractures. The applicant was prescribed further painkillers. In the Court's view the medical assistance provided was adequate and sufficient. Since no fractures were identified the treatment was confined to painkillers, which appeared adequate, particularly bearing in mind the fact that the applicant made no further complaints about his health. The Court concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3 concerning the medical assistance provided to the applicant for the injury sustained on 17 March 2005.   Article 6 § 1 The Court found that the disciplinary penalties imposed on the applicant were not of such a nature and severity that the matter could be considered within the “criminal” sphere; therefore Article 6 did not apply.   Article 8   Control of parcels sent to the applicant The Court noted that the disciplinary measure imposed on the applicant concerning receipt of parcels was applied in connection with finding the applicant guilty of a very serious disciplinary offence, also amounting to criminal activity (possession of illegal drugs) and that it lasted for a limited period of time (three months). The applicant's complaints were reviewed by a court and the penalty imposed on the applicant was of a minor nature. The Court concluded that there had therefore been no violation of Article 8.   Alleged failure of the prison authorities to forward the applicant's letters The Court noted that the applicant had failed to specify when and if his letters had been handed to the prison authorities and to whom they had been addressed. He also failed to provide any information about how he had learned that his letters had not been delivered. In those circumstances the Court considered that the applicant’s allegation had not been established with sufficient certainty and that it was therefore inadmissible.   Article 13   In the circumstances of the applicant’s case, the Court considered that he could have expected the responsible Gospić County Court judge to rule on his complaint about his prison conditions. As he had failed to do so, 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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 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. [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.