CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 9 décembre 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 } .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 } .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   893 9.12.2008   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT DZIECIAK v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Dzieciak v. Poland (application no.   77766/01).   The Court held:   unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the Polish authorities’ failure to protect Mr   Dzieciak’s health and life on account of inadequate medical care during his four years of pre-trial detention; and, by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article   2 of the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into Mr   Dzieciak’s death.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr   Dzieciak’s widow 20,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage (The judgment is available only in English.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Zbigniew Dzieciak, was a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lived in Warsaw. He suffered from heart disease and had two heart attacks prior to his pre-trial detention on suspicion of drug trafficking. He died in detention on 25 October 2001.   The case concerned notably Mrs Dzieciak’s allegation that the Polish authorities contributed to her husband’s death due to inadequate and belated medical care during the four years he spent in pre-trial detention.   Mr Dzieciak was arrested on 17 September 1997 and placed in pre-trial detention on suspicion of, in particular, recruiting for an international drug ring. Despite his numerous requests for release on grounds of ill-health, the domestic courts repeatedly extended his detention, relying on the reasonable suspicion against him and the complexity of the investigation, which involved organised crime.   In September 1998 and February 1999 a medical panel which had examined the applicant concluded that he was well enough to remain in detention, provided that there was a hospital wing in the detention centre where he was being held.   The applicant’s wife, who visited her husband twice a month, submitted that his health constantly deteriorated during his detention. She alleged that his serious health problems started in November 1999 when he was transferred to Łódź Detention Centre, which had no hospital facility, and declined to the extent that in March 2000 he lost consciousness and had to be transferred to Łódź Prison Hospital. He spent 10 months there, during which time he had various tests, including a coronary angiography.   Subsequently, in January 2001 the applicant was transferred to Mokotów Detention Centre. His health deteriorated even further there; he collapsed six months later and was taken to Warsaw Prison Hospital where he was treated for pneumonia until 10 September 2001.   During the period spent in that hospital, the applicant was examined by doctors from Anin Institute of Cardiology who decided that he should have a heart bypass operation. Three appointments were scheduled for surgery. The applicant submitted that he had never been informed of the first appointment of 27 July 2001; the Government maintained that that date had been cancelled due to renovation work to the institute. As concerned the second appointment, the applicant’s wife testified that her husband had received notification, but too late as he had received it after the proposed date, 21 September 2001. She also submitted that that notification’s envelope had been stamped by the authorities with “censored 24.09.01”. Finally, the applicant’s wife had gone herself to the institute to obtain a third appointment, scheduled for 26 October 2001; she gave the notification to the applicant’s lawyer in person so that he could inform the detention centre.   On 1 October a medical panel examined the applicant again and concluded that detention posed a threat to his health; in view of the applicant’s surgery on 26 October 2001, it was recommended that the preventive measure against him be changed. On 5 October Warsaw Court of Appeal, without examining the applicant’s state of health, extended his pre-trial detention for another four months.   The applicant’s trial started on 16 October 2001 and he also attended hearings on 18 and 19 October; during that time the applicant was prevented from having any medical consultations as he was transferred to the trial court before the doctors’ arrival at the detention centre and was returned to his cell when they had already gone off duty.   According to the applicant’s wife and other evidence examined by the Court, on 22   October the applicant was brought to the court room where he fainted before the hearing began and at 9.30 a.m. was taken back to Mokotów Detention Centre’s hospital wing. He was then examined by a doctor and transferred back to his cell.   The same day the trial court was forwarded the medical panel’s report of 1 October 2001 and decided to release the applicant on 26 October 2001 so that he could have his heart surgery.   Meanwhile, at 3.45 p.m. the applicant, unconscious, was taken from his cell to the hospital wing of the detention centre. He was then hospitalised in Warsaw and, never regaining consciousness, died on 25 October 2001. The post mortem examination concluded that he had died of acute coronary insufficiency.   The Government maintained that the applicant had been seen by various doctors and cardiologists and given specialised treatment throughout his detention. Furthermore, following the investigation into the applicant’s death, launched in December 2001 and ultimately discontinued in January 2004, medical experts had concluded that the applicant had died as a result of unsuccessful medical treatment for which no-one could be held responsible and that it was impossible to assess whether surgery would have improved the applicant’s health, given the advanced stage of his illness.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13   May 2000.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying in particular on Article   2 (right to life), the applicant’s wife alleged that the Polish authorities had contributed to her husband’s death through inadequate and belated medical care and that the investigation into his death had been ineffective. Mr Dzieciak also complained that the inadequacy of the medical care during his pre-trial detention had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive, in breach of Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and   5   (right to liberty and security).   Decision of the Court   Article 2   The alleged failure to protect Mr Dzieciak’s life   The Court noted that it was not in dispute that the applicant had suffered from a serious heart disease, had had heart attacks prior to his detention, and that his state of health had deteriorated during the years he spent in custody. Nor had the Government denied that the authorities had been aware of his disease, which had required periodic hospitalisation and medical interventions and had, eventually, qualified him for heart surgery in a civilian hospital.   However, despite the medical panel’s reports of 1998 and 1999 which recommended that the applicant should be kept in a detention centre with a hospital wing, in November 1999 he had been transferred to a detention centre in Łódź with no hospital wing. There was no evidence in the case file to show that the applicant had received any medical treatment during the four months he spent in that facility or even that he had seen a doctor. It had taken the applicant’s health to deteriorate to such an extent that he had collapsed for him to be transferred to hospital. The very fact that he had then had to stay in that hospital for 10 months indicated the gravity of his illness. On a subsequent occasion it had taken the applicant’s diagnosis with pneumonia for him to be hospitalised.   As concerned the applicant’s surgery, the Court considered that neither the domestic authorities nor the Government had given a satisfactory explanation as to why the applicant had not been transferred to the Institute on the first two of the dates scheduled. It was particularly troubling that the envelope containing the notification of the appointment scheduled for 21 September 2001 had apparently been delayed by a prosecutor for the purpose of censorship until 24 September 2001.   Indeed, the Court was struck by the fact that even though the medical panel had recommended the applicant’s release on 1 October 2001 as it considered further detention a threat to his health, that decision had only been forwarded to the trial court 22 days later, namely the day on which the applicant had collapsed in the courtroom.   Moreover, the fact that the Government had failed to give a detailed account of the circumstances directly preceding the applicant’s death on 22 October 2001 made it difficult for the Court to assess the appropriateness of his medical care on that day. However, as concerned the days immediately before 22 October 2001, the Court observed that the Government had not contested that the applicant had attended the hearings in his case and therefore had no access to a doctor, as he had remained outside the detention centre during the doctors’ hours of duty.   Finally, the grounds given by the domestic authorities to extend the applicant’s detention had been particularly unsatisfactory given the serious state of his health, which had provided more and more cause for concern as time passed, and could not justify the overall period of the his detention, which had exceeded four years.   The above elements were sufficient for the Court to conclude that the quality and promptness of the medical care provided to the applicant during the four years of his pre-trial detention had put his health and life in danger. In particular, the lack of cooperation and coordination between the various state authorities, the failure to take the applicant to hospital for two scheduled operations, the lack of adequate and prompt information to the trial court on the applicant’s state of health, the failure to secure him access to doctors during the final days of his life and the failure to take into account his health in the automatic extensions of his detention had amounted to inadequate medical treatment and had constituted a violation of Poland’s obligation to protect the lives of those it holds in custody. There had accordingly been a violation of Article 2 on account of the Polish authorities’ failure to protect the applicant’s life.   The alleged inadequacy of the investigation   The Court considered that the facts of the case required a prompt and diligent reaction from the investigating authorities. The investigation had, however, lasted more than two years and had been discontinued by the prosecutor without having considered doubts expressed by experts about the postponing of the applicant’s surgery on three occasions.   More importantly, the incomplete and inadequate character of the investigation was highlighted by the fact that the exact course of events directly preceding the applicant’s death had not been established. The prosecutor had failed to establish: whether the applicant had been taken to the court room that morning; what exactly had happened in the court’s building; why the ambulance had brought him back to the detention centre; and, finally what had happened before the applicant had been taken unconscious from his cell at 3.45 p.m. Nor had the prosecutor assessed the accuracy of witness statements, or heard other witnesses such as prison guards, the applicant’s cell mates or the ambulance team.   The Court therefore concluded that the authorities had failed to carry out a thorough and effective investigation into the allegation that the applicant’s death had been caused by ineffective medical care during his four years of pre-trial detention, in further violation of Article 2.   The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 3 and Article 5 § 3.     Judges Garlicki and Thór Björgvinsson 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 Adrien Raif-Meyer (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 33 37) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) 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.