CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 12 juin 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   431 12.06.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KOTSAFTIS v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kotsaftis v. Greece (application no. 39780/06).   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.   Under Article 41 of the Convention (just satisfaction), the Court awarded the applicant 7,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   1,000 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Ioannis Kotsaftis, is a Greek national who was born in 1947.   Mr Kotsaftis complained of the conditions of his detention on account, in particular, of the lack of treatment appropriate to his state of health.   In May 1998 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention for trafficking in antiques and possessing drugs. In June 2003 a final judgment found him guilty as charged and he was sentenced to 13 years and four months’ imprisonment.   After the applicant was admitted to hospital for tests in August 2003, doctors found him to be suffering from cirrhosis of the liver caused by chronic hepatitis B.   According to a medical report drawn up on 8 December 2003, the applicant’s condition called for continuous monitoring in a centre specialising in hepatology, as well as treatment to prevent possible complications. On 8 January 2004 the domestic courts ordered a stay of execution of the applicant’s sentence to enable him to spend four months in hospital. After being granted prison leave on 27 January 2004, he absconded.   The applicant was arrested on 9 June 2006 and was returned to prison, where he was placed in a cell measuring 24 square metres which he shared with ten other prisoners.   From 21 June to 3 July 2006 the applicant underwent treatment in hospital for bleeding in the oesophagus.   After the applicant lodged an application for a stay of execution of his sentence, an expert examination was carried out on 23 September 2006 by two forensic medical experts. According to the two medical reports, an extended hospital stay was not essential at that stage of the disease. In order to prevent the applicant’s condition from worsening, one of the reports recommended rest, a special diet, treatment with the appropriate drugs and regular check-ups. The application for a stay of execution was rejected.   On 9 March 2007, under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court (interim measures), the European Court of Human Rights requested Greece to order the transfer of the applicant to a specialised medical centre so that he could undergo all the necessary tests and remain in hospital until his doctors considered that he could return to prison without his life being endangered.   On 15 March 2007 the applicant was transferred to the gastroenterology and hepatology unit of Patras hospital, where he remains to date. He is receiving treatment with anti-viral drugs for his hepatitis B. In addition, a number of specialised tests have been carried out and the applicant has received a variety of treatments.   A medical report drawn up on 18 January 2008 found that the applicant’s condition was stable and concluded that it was no longer necessary to keep him in hospital.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 7 September 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nina Vajić (Croatian), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Khanlar Hajiyev (Azerbaijani), Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), George Nicolaou (Cypriot), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), the applicant complained that he had contracted hepatitis B as a result of his conditions of detention. He further complained of the lack of treatment appropriate to his condition.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court observed that the applicant was suffering from cirrhosis caused by the hepatitis B virus. Cirrhosis was a chronic disease of the liver which necessitated continuous monitoring and appropriate treatment and frequently, as in the applicant’s case, resulted in complications such as bleeding in the digestive tract and portal hypertension.   As to the applicant’s claim that his infection with the hepatitis virus had been caused by his poor conditions of detention, the Court noted that the disease in question was highly infectious and was transmitted through sexual intercourse or through exposure to infected blood or body fluids. Given the chronic nature of the disease and the way in which the virus was transmitted, the Court considered that the applicant’s claim could not be upheld.   The Court sought to ascertain whether the national authorities had done what could reasonably be expected of them in view of the seriousness of the applicant’s illness. It considered that between August 2003 and January 2004, and since 15 March 2007, the authorities had not failed in their duty to safeguard the physical integrity of the applicant, who had received the appropriate treatment and medical supervision during those periods.   However, with regard to the period between 9 June 2006 and 15 March 2007 the Court observed, among other things, that, contrary to the findings of the expert reports drawn up in September 2006, the applicant had been kept in detention without being given a special diet or treatment with the appropriate drugs, and had not undergone tests in a specialist medical centre.   It noted in particular that, with the exception of his hospital treatment between 21 June and 3   July 2006 for bleeding in the oesophagus, virtually all the applicant’s medical checks related to other health problems. Moreover, a procedure originally scheduled for July 2006 was not performed until one year later.   The Court also deplored the fact that a person suffering from a serious and highly infectious disease had been detained along with ten other prisoners in a cell measuring 24 square metres.   Lastly, the Court stressed that, despite the fact that the competent authorities had been informed that he was suffering from cirrhosis and that his condition necessitated appropriate treatment, it was not until measures had been indicated by the Court that the applicant began to receive regular check-ups.   The Court concluded that the Greek authorities, during the period in question, had not fulfilled their obligation to safeguard the applicant’s physical integrity, in particular by providing him with the appropriate medical care. Taking the view that that omission amounted to inhuman treatment, it held that there had been a violation of Article 3.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts 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.