CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 janvier 2009

.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 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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   41 20.1.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT SŁAWOMIR MUSIAŁ v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Sławomir Musiał v. Poland (application no. 28300/06).   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 on account of the nature, duration and severity of the ill-treatment to which Mr Musiał   was subjected throughout his detention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr Musiał 10,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   Under Article 46 (binding force and execution of judgments), the Court held that Poland was to secure at the earliest possible date adequate conditions of Mr Musiał’s detention in a specialised institution capable of providing him with necessary psychiatric treatment and constant medical supervision. The Court also held that necessary legislative and administrative measures should be taken rapidly by the State in order to secure appropriate conditions of detention, in particular for prisoners who are in need of special care because of their state of health.   ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Sławomir Musiał, is a Polish national who was born in1978 and is currently detained in Herby Stare Prison (Poland). He has been suffering from epilepsy since his early childhood. More recently he has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and other serious mental disorders. Prior to his detention, he had attempted to commit suicide and received in-patient treatment in a psychiatric hospital.   The applicant was detained on 19 April 2005 on suspicion of committing robbery and battery. He has been detained since 2005 in various detention facilities designed for prisoners in good mental health. On several occasions he has been taken to a psychiatric hospital for emergency treatment following hallucinations and suicide attempts.   The parties’ statements concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention were, to a large extent, contradictory. According to the applicant he has had to endure overcrowded and unsanitary cells in all detention facilities in which he has been held. He pointed out that cells were infested with bedbugs, cockroaches and fungus. Detainees smoke cigarettes all day long inside the cells; bed linen and towels were not properly washed; and, there was a stench in the air. Detainees also had to wash themselves in cold water.   The Government contested most of the applicant’s allegations, but acknowledged that the detention facilities, in which the applicant has been held, faced the problem of overcrowding.   The applicant has not lodged any formal complaints with the penitentiary authorities. He has complained, however, to various State authorities, including the Ombudsman, about the inadequate medical care he has received and the conditions of his detention. He has also filed several requests for release on health grounds, all of which have been refused.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 18   June 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Päivi Hirvelä (Finland), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant alleged that the medical care and treatment with which he has been provided during his detention were inadequate in view of his epilepsy, schizophrenia and other mental disorders. He also complained of overcrowding and poor conditions in the detention facilities, relying on Articles   3 and   8 (right to respect for private and family life).   Decision of the Court   Admissibility   The Government argued that the applicant had not exhausted the domestic remedies available to him in that he had not complained to a penitentiary judge, had not pursued compensation proceedings, had not initiated proceeding for damages against the State Treasury, and had not made an application to the Constitutional Court.   The Government provided an example of a decision of the Constitutional Court finding unconstitutional the placement of detainees for an indefinite period of time in cells below the limit authorised by law.   Mindful of the applicant’s limited capacities as a person with psychiatric problems and held in custody, the Court observed that none of the remedies suggested by the Government could have realistically redressed his situation.   Firstly, the penitentiary authorities had been sufficiently aware of the applicant’s situation as he had complained of inadequate medical care and detention conditions in each of his numerous requests for release from pre-trial detention. Despite that, and while acknowledging overcrowding, the penitentiary authorities had decided to reduce further the authorised surface per person in detention. In addition, the applicant’s complaint lodged with the Ombudsman had been dismissed as ill-founded and the domestic courts had rejected his applications for release for the same reason. Secondly, the civil law remedies could only have provided monetary compensation but not a change in detention conditions. And thirdly, an individual complaint to the Constitutional Court could not have been an effective remedy in the applicant’s circumstances, as it could not have addressed his complaint in its integrity.   Article 3   The Court observed that while maintaining the detention measure was not, in itself, incompatible with the applicant’s state of health, having the applicant detained in establishments not suitable for incarceration of the mentally-ill, raised a serious issue under the Convention. The Court also expressed concerns about the living and sanitary conditions of the applicant’s detention, considering it undisputed that all of those establishments, at the relevant time, had faced the problem of overcrowding. Moreover, the Court found that, despite the particular state of health of the applicant, he had mostly received the same attention as his other inmates, which showed the authorities’ failure to make a commitment to improving the conditions of detention in compliance with the recommendations of the Council of Europe. In this connection the Court referred in particular to the judgment of the Constitutional Court which held that the overcrowding in itself could be qualified as inhuman and degrading treatment and, if combined with additional aggravating circumstances, as torture.   Having assessed in particular the cumulative effects of the inadequate medical care and inappropriate conditions in which the applicant had been held throughout his pre ‑ trial detention, the Court found that these conditions had clearly had a detrimental effect on his health and well-being. The Court concluded that the nature, duration and severity of the ill-treatment to which the applicant had been subjected were sufficient to be qualified as inhuman and degrading, in violation of Article 3.   Article 8   The Court held that no separate issue arose under Article   8.     ***   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 88 41 28 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77)   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.