CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 décembre 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   881 6.12.2007   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT BRAGADIREANU v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Bragadireanu v. Romania (application no. 22088/04).   The Court held: unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the medical care given to the applicant in prison; unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the conditions of his detention; by six votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) concerning the length of the criminal proceedings.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 6,500   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Alexandru Bragadireanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954.   In June 1993, Mr Bragadireanu was remanded in custody, accused of having murdered his partner. He was found guilty of aggravated murder and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment in May 1995. The applicant appealed before the Supreme Court, alleging in particular that the evidence had been wrongly interpreted by the courts.   During those proceedings his health was in constant decline. He was sent to a prison hospital several times and underwent surgery. In 1996, he was diagnosed with a perianal tumour. Due to a severe problem with his eyes, doctors recommended his release. The Supreme Court therefore suspended the proceedings from 27 May 1997 to 2 June 1999 and ordered the applicant's release. In February 2004, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld Mr Bragadireanu’s sentence.   The applicant lodged a request for the suspension of the sentence, which was refused on the ground that the Forensic Institute concluded that, given the stage of his illness, he could stay in prison and that his medical treatment could be continued in prison hospitals.   Mr Bragadireanu was imprisoned in March 2004. He alleged that he had been placed in a cell with 30 beds arranged at three levels and with badly damaged mattresses, with two detainees in each bed, two toilets and no shower or warm water in the room. Due to his medical condition (as he had an artificial anus, he was unable to control his bowel movements) he asked to be transferred to a single-bed cell, but his request was rejected on the ground that no such cells existed in the penitentiary, except those for solitary confinement. He repeatedly requested to be examined by a doctor, but to no avail. He also claimed that his medicine had not been provided by the authorities and that his family had had to send it to him. He was hospitalised several times from 2004 to 2006. The applicant lodged unsuccessful complaints before the Romanian courts about the conditions in prison and the lack of medical care.   To date, he is still in prison and it seems that he has not been transferred to an individual cell.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25 May 2004.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenian), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), David Thór Björgvinsson (Icelandic), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre (Monegasque), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles 3 and 6 § 1, Mr Bragadireanu complained in particular about the conditions of his detention and the lack of adequate medical treatment for his illness in prison. He also complained about the excessive length of the criminal proceedings brought against him.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Concerning the medical care in prison   The Court noted that the evidence available showed that the applicant had been examined by the penitentiary doctors on a regular basis and sent to public hospitals for further examinations when necessary. Therefore the penitentiary authorities had generally responded adequately to his medical requirements. Moreover, while it was true that the applicant's family had provided medicines for him, the Court noted that it was only reported to have happened once, and held that the applicant's general health did not seem to have deteriorated in prison due to lack of medical treatment.   On the question of whether a severely ill person should be deprived of their liberty, the Court recalled that the national courts had based their refusal to suspend the execution of the sentence on a medical report that had concluded that the applicant was fit for detention.   The applicant did not, therefore, prove “beyond reasonable doubt” that his suffering attained the minimum level of severity in order to fall within the scope of Article 3. Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 3 concerning the medical care in prison.   Concerning the conditions of detention   The Court considered that a separate issue arose concerning the conditions of Mr Bragadireanu’s detention. The applicant's allegations of the lack of organised help from the prison authorities were not contested by the Romanian Government. Moreover, it seemed that the applicant had not had a personal assistant in prison, required by his poor health, and had been forced to rely on his inmates for the most basic sanitary needs.   While the Government provided very detailed information concerning the medical surveillance of the applicant, it could not produce a single piece of information on the facilities offered to him in detention. The Court therefore concluded that no such facilities were provided to him.   The Court also recalled that the applicant's medical condition was severe and his basic sanitary needs were difficult to attend to. Although the authorities had been aware of those facts, he had still been detained in an ordinary prison and shared a cell with other people. He also had no showers or warm water at his disposal and had not received regular assistance. His poor condition had led to social segregation from the rest of the prison population. Furthermore, Mr Bragadireanu’s description of the prison facilities was not contested by the Romanian Government and was confirmed by reports of the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) on Romania.   The Court concluded that the prison conditions, in particular the overcrowding and lack of access to sanitary and other facilities, caused the applicant suffering, in violation of Article 3.   Article 6 § 1   The Court noted that the proceedings had lasted eight years and eight months. It considered that that period was excessive and failed to satisfy the “reasonable time” requirement. There had, accordingly, been a violation of Article 6 § 1.     Judge Myjer expressed a partly dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   ***   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.