CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 3 février 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   77 3.2.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT KAPRYKOWSKI v. POLAND   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Kaprykowski v. Poland (application no. 23052/05).   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 applicant, who suffers from severe epilepsy, having been detained for four years without adequate medical treatment or assistance.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded Mr   Kaprykowski 3,000   euros   (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage. ( The judgment is available only in English. )   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Robert Kaprykowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Poznań (Poland). He suffers from severe epilepsy and, at the relevant time, had frequent seizures, sometimes even several times a day. He also has other neurological disorders, including encephalopathy and dementia.   The case concerned Mr Kaprykowski’s complaint that, in view of his state of health, the medical care with which he was provided during periods of his detention in Poznań Remand centre was inadequate.   A recidivist offender, Mr Kaprykowski has served a number of prison sentences in various detention facilities in Poland. He was first remanded in custody in May 1998 and since then has been released and then remanded in custody again on numerous occasions. In particular, from 5   August 2003 to 30 November 2007, he was in continuous detention either in ordinary detention facilities or prison hospitals. He was most recently released on 1 December 2007.   Throughout his incarceration several doctors stressed that he should receive specialised psychiatric and neurological treatment. Notably, in 2001 medical experts recommended that he should undergo brain surgery; and, in 2007, on his release from a stay in hospital, doctors clearly stated that he should be placed under 24-hour medical supervision.   The Government submitted that the applicant had received adequate medical care and medicine and emphasised that he had been detained with inmates who knew what to do when he had had one of his epileptic seizures. The applicant had also been transferred to the Gdańsk Remand Centre hospital which specialised in neurology to receive better medical care on two occasions. At the time when the applicant had been given alternative generic medicine, he had been kept under close medical supervision at the Poznań Remand Centre hospital, where he had been examined by doctors almost every day.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 4 June 2005.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the 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]   Complaint   Relying on Article   3 the applicant alleged that, in view of his severe epilepsy and other neurological disorders, the medical treatment and assistance during his detention in Poznań Remand Centre had been inadequate.   Decision of the Court   The Court declared the applicant’s complaint concerning three periods (from May to July 2005, from January to what is presumed March 2006 and from May to November 2007) of his detention in Poznań Remand centre admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible. However, it examined the case against its entire background, that is to say that the applicant had been in continuous detention from 5 August 2003 to 30 November 2007.   Article 3   The Court was convinced that, at the relevant time, the applicant had been in need of constant medical supervision and that, without such supervision, he had faced a major risk to his health.   From 5 August 2003 to 30 November 2007, namely four years, the applicant had had to rely solely on the prison health care system. It was a matter of concern that, during most of that time, he had been detained in ordinary detention facilities or, at best, in the ward of a prison hospital. He had been detained in the specialised neurological hospital of Gdańsk Remand Centre on only two occasions, despite his specific condition.   During that time, the applicant had to have been aware of the fact that he had been at risk at any moment of needing serious emergency medical treatment and that, apart from his fellow inmates, no immediate medical assistance had been available. Even if examined later by in-house doctors, they had no specialist knowledge of neurology. Given his personality disorder, he had not been able to take autonomous decisions or go about more demanding daily tasks. That had to caused him considerable anxiety and had to have placed him in a position of inferiority vis-à-vis other prisoners.   Indeed, the Court was struck by the Government’s argument that the applicant sharing his cell with other inmates, who had known how to react to his seizures, could be considered adequate conditions of detention. The Court stressed its disapproval of remand centre staff having felt relieved of their duty to provide security and care to more vulnerable detainees by making cellmates responsible for providing daily assistance or, if necessary, emergency aid.   Moreover, the applicant had been transferred about 18   times, often over long distances, between different detention facilities. That had to have been unnecessarily detrimental to his already fragile mental health.   In the Court’s opinion the lack of adequate medical treatment provided to the applicant in Poznań Remand Centre which had effectively placed him in a position of dependency and inferiority vis-à-vis his healthy cellmates had undermined his dignity and had entailed particularly acute hardship that had caused anxiety and suffering beyond that inevitably associated with any deprivation of liberty.   In conclusion, the Court considered that the applicant’s continued detention without adequate medical treatment and assistance had constituted inhuman and degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3.     ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 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.