CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 17 janvier 2008

.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   027 17.1.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT PILČIĆ v. CROATIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Pilčić v. Croatia (application no. 33138/06).   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 failure to provide the applicant with adequate medical treatment in prison.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 2,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Boris Pilčić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1951 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Lepogalva State Prison.   Following the institution of criminal proceedings against Mr Pilčić, he was apprehended in July 2001 and placed in pre-trial detention in Zagreb County Prison until 24 February 2003. After that date, having being convicted of murder, attempted murder, forgery and robbery, he was sent to serve the remainder of his sentence (30 years and six months’ imprisonment) in Lepoglava State Prison.   According to medical documentation submitted by the parties, the applicant suffered from kidney stones, varicose veins, liver damage and a number of spinal ailments such as scoliosis (curvature of the spine), lordosis (inward curve of the lower back), discopathy (cervical disc injury) and discarthrosis (structural and functional failure of the discal joint). The applicant’s medical record also indicated that he had been seen by prison doctors on several occasions and that he had been hospitalised in Zagreb Prison Hospital several times.   In August 2006 Mr Pilčić petitioned both the competent judge for the execution of sentences and the Head Office of the Prison Administration, complaining about the lack of adequate medical care for his various health problems. His allegations were ultimately rejected.   In September 2006, he further lodged an application with the Constitutional Court, which held that it was not suitable for examination.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 12 July 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis, President, Loukis Loucaides, Nina Vajić, Anatoli Kovler, Elisabeth Steiner, Sverre Erik Jebens, Giorgio Malinverni, judges, and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that the Lepoglava State Prison authorities had failed to provide him with adequate medical care.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that it was undisputed that the applicant had been suffering from various ailments, including kidney stones, ever since January 2002.   Concerning the adequacy of the medical care provided to the applicant, the Court stressed that it was not in a position to make an independent assessment as to the necessity of surgery in connection with the applicant’s kidney ailment. However, the medical documentation submitted by the parties showed that doctors in Zagreb Prison Hospital had established that even if an operation was not urgent, the applicant’s kidney condition could only be cured through surgery. The Court noted that the Croatian Government failed to submit any indication that Lepoglava Prison or any other authority undertook any relevant steps to ensure that the surgery recommended would actually be carried out.   The Court accepted that having surgery carried out in an ordinary hospital on a person serving a prison sentence after having being convicted of serious crimes presented a security risk and might therefore involve a certain degree of associated operational problems, which might have caused some delay. However, the medical documentation showed that the relevant authorities had been aware since July 2003 that the surgery in question was recommended. During a period of more than four years, no steps had been taken to have it carried out.   The Court considered that, by leaving the applicant to suffer considerable occasional pain for a prolonged period of time without a foreseeable prospect of being permanently relieved of his kidney ailment, the prison authorities had failed to provide him with adequate medical treatment, which constituted inhuman and degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3.     ***   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.