CEDH · PRESS;HEARINGS;ENG — 14 mai 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s69BE285C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:85.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-85.05pt } .s9A223E1B { width:11.03pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s595A57E4 { width:85.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3CED24E9 { width:27.05pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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   349 14.5.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER HEARING PALADI v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber hearing today Wednesday 14 May 2008 at 9 a.m. , in the case of Paladi v. Moldova (application no.   39806/05).   The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     The applicant   Ion Paladi, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1953 and lives in Chişinău. He was Deputy Mayor of Chişinău and a university lecturer. In 2006 he was declared as having a second-degree disability.   Summary of the facts   The case concerns, in particular, Mr   Paladi’s complaint that, despite doctors’ recommendations, he was not given appropriate medical care while in detention pending trial.   On 24   September 2004 Mr   Paladi was taken into custody on a 30-day detention order and placed in the Centre for Fighting Economic Crime and Corruption (the “CFECC”) on suspicion of abuse of position and power. He stayed there until 25   February 2005 when he was transferred to Remand Centre   no.   3 of the Ministry of Justice in Chişinău.   Mr   Paladi suffers from a number of serious illnesses (diabetes, angina, heart disease, hypertension, chronic bronchitis, pancreatitis and hepatitis) and, while in detention, was examined by various doctors who all recommended medical supervision. Certain doctors also considered that the applicant should undergo operations, which could only be carried out in specialised units.   According to Mr   Paladi, the CFECC had no medical staff until late February 2005. He also claimed that he, his wife and lawyer had complained to the authorities about his insufficient medical treatment, but had only been able to obtain sporadic medical visits and assistance in emergencies.   As a result of a medical report drawn up in March 2005, Mr   Paladi was transferred to a prison hospital where, on 20   May 2005, a neurologist from the Republican Neurology Centre of the Ministry of Health (the   “RNC”) recommended hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy. The director of the hospital informed the domestic courts a total of seven times between May and September 2005 that the HBO therapy had not been carried out because his hospital did not have the necessary equipment for such specialised neurological treatment.   In September 2005 a medical board of the Ministry of Health examined Mr   Paladi and, at their recommendation, Centru District Court ordered his transfer to the RNC. Mr   Paladi received HBO therapy, which produced positive results, at the Republican Clinical Hospital and that hospital prescribed a continuation of the therapy until 28   November. In the meantime, however, the   RNC had written a letter on 9   November stating that Mr   Paladi’s condition had stabilised and recommending his release from hospital. No reference having been made to HBO therapy in that letter, on 10   November the district court ordered the applicant’s transfer back to the prison hospital.   On the evening of 10   November the European Court of Human Rights indicated by facsimile to the Moldovan Government an interim measure under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court, stating that the applicant should not be transferred from the   RNC until the Court had had the opportunity to examine the case. On 11   November 2005 a Deputy Section Registrar of the Court tried to contact by telephone the Government Agent’s Office in Moldova, without success. The same day Mr   Paladi was transferred to the prison hospital. Finally, following requests by the applicant’s lawyer and the Agent of the Government, the district court ordered the applicant to be transferred back to the   RNC on 14   November. The applicant alleged, corroborated by a television news report, that he was made to wait six hours before being admitted to the RNC. According to the doctors, that delay was due to the fact that Mr   Paladi had arrived at the   RNC without a medical file.   Between 5   October 2004 and 11   October 2005 Mr   Paladi made a total of 10   requests to be released, which were all refused, notably because the courts considered that he might reoffend or abscond, tamper with evidence or intimidate witnesses. On 1   June 2005, the examination of his case was suspended because he was considered as being unfit to attend hearings. Ultimately, on 15   December 2005, Mr   Paladi’s detention pending trial was replaced with an obligation not to leave the country.   Complaints   Relying on Articles   3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and   5 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Mr   Paladi complains about the unlawfulness of his detention pending trial and that, during that time, he was not given appropriate medical care. He also alleges that the authorities failed to comply swiftly with the Court’s interim measures ordered under Rule   39 of the Rules of Court, in breach of Article   34 (right of individual petition) of the Convention.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 9   November 2005.   In its judgment of 10   July 2007, the Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   3 as regards the lack of proper medical care provided to the applicant at each stage of his detention. It further held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article   5 §   1 on account of the applicant’s detention pending trial after 22   October 2004, when the court order for his detention had expired. Lastly, the Court held, by six votes to one, that Moldova’s failure to comply as a matter of urgency with the interim measure it had indicated had jeopardised Mr   Paladi’s ability to pursue his application, in violation of Article   34.   On 30   January 2008, the case was referred to the Grand Chamber [1] at the Government’s request.   Composition of the Court   The case will be heard by the Grand Chamber composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (French), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Swedish), Karel Jungwiert (Czech), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian) Ján Šikuta (Slovak), Ineta Ziemele (Latvian), Mark Villiger (Swiss) [2] , Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), Luis López Guerra (Spanish), András Sajó (Hungarian), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (citizen of “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgian), Işıl Karakaş (Turkish), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldovan), judges , Egbert Myjer (Dutch), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuanian), Renate Jaeger (German), substitute judges , and also Vincent Berger , Jurisconsult .   Representatives of the parties   Government :   Vladimir Grosu , Agent ,   Lilia Grimalschi , Rodica Secrieru , Advisers ;   Applicant :   Gheorghe Ulianovschi , Counsel ,   Nicolae Paladi , Adviser .   ***   After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which are held in private. Judgment will be delivered at a later date. [3]   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 European Convention on Human Rights, 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] Judge elected in respect of Liechtenstein. [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.