CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 29 avril 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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   308 29.4.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT PETREA v. ROMANIA   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Petrea v. Romania (application no. 4792/03).   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 the applicant’s detention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 3,000   euros   (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Alfred-Petronel Petrea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Iaşi (Romania).   The case concerned the applicant’s complaints about the inadequate conditions of his detention, in particular as a result of overcrowding and the lack of ongoing medical treatment for his mental disorder.   In September 2000 Mr Petrea was arrested on suspicion of tax evasion. He was ultimately convicted on 8 October 2002 and sentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment, with an obligation to undergo medical treatment for his mental disorder. The local courts ordered that the applicant be treated while in detention and after his release until he completely recovered.   According to the applicant’s medical record from his period of pre-trial detention, he was treated seven times in prison hospitals, where he was mainly diagnosed with thrombophlebitis, venous insufficiency and a mental disorder. Records also indicated that he had systematically been given medicine for his venous insufficiency and, until 20 December 2001, for his mental disorder. The latter treatment was resumed on 5 August 2002 and given sporadically after that date.   In October 2002, after the adoption of the final decision in the criminal proceedings, Mr Petrea was transferred to Iaşi Penitentiary and placed in a section designated for extremely dangerous prisoners.   The applicant alleged that, despite his repeated requests to be seen by a specialist doctor and to be given adequate medical treatment, during the first eight months of his detention he had only been examined by the prison doctor, who had consistently informed him that there were no funds for continuing his treatment.   According to the Romanian Government, the applicant was first placed in a dormitory which he shared with nine prisoners then in another with 53 prisoners. Those dormitories provided 1.1 sq. m to 4 sq. m of space per person. Hygiene facilities were permanently accessible to prisoners in a separate room and warm water was available once a week. The applicant also had daily one-hour walks, frequently received visits from his family and participated in the social programme of the penitentiary.   From February 2004 to February 2005, the execution of the applicant’s sentence was suspended for medical reasons. On 16 June 2005 he was ultimately released on probation.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 16   December 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorran), President , Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romanian), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenian), Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Ann Power (Irish), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), Mr Petrea complained about the inadequate conditions of his detention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court noted that, according to the applicant’s medical records, his psychiatric treatment had been interrupted at least from December 2001 to August 2002, although there had been no evidence that specialist doctors had reassessed his condition during that time.   Furthermore, the Court was concerned by the applicant’s allegations, which the Romanian Government did not deny, that during the first eight months of his detention in Iaşi Penitentiary his repeated requests to be seen by a specialist doctor had been ignored.   Moreover, the Court noted the Government’s submissions concerning the applicant’s detention conditions, notably that he had been held in large capacity dormitories and had only been allowed one hour of daily exercise and a warm shower once a week. Indeed, the Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) had already stressed the detrimental effect of large capacity dormitories in penitentiaries especially when coupled with a poor regime of activities and inadequate access to washing facilities. The Court also reiterated that it had frequently found a violation of Article 3 on account of the lack of personal space afforded to detainees.   The Court accepted that, in the applicant’s case, there was no indication that there had been an intention of humiliating or debasing him. However, it considered that the conditions of his detention, given his psychiatric condition and the lack of adequate treatment for it, had to have had a harmful effect on his human dignity, in violation 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) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Paramy Chanthalangsy (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 91) Sania Ivedi (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 59 45)   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.