CEDH · PRESS;GCJUDGMENTS;ENG — 10 mars 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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .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   189 10.3.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT PALADI v. MOLDOVA   The European Court of Human Rights has today delivered at a public hearing its Grand Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Paladi v. Moldova (application no.   39806/05).   The Court held:   by fifteen votes to two, 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 fact that the applicant had not received appropriate medical treatment, as required by the seriousness of his condition, while in detention; by sixteen votes to one, that there had been a violation of Article   5   §   1 (right to liberty and security) of the Convention in that the applicant’s pre-trial detention had continued in the absence of a judicial decision to that effect; unanimously, that it was not necessary to examine separately the complaints under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4; and, by nine votes to eight, that there had been a violation of Article   34 (right of individual petition) on account of the Moldovan authorities’ failure to comply with the interim measure, issued under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, in which the Court asked them to keep the applicant in the Republican Neurology Centre of the Ministry of Health.   Under Article   41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr   Paladi 2,080   euros   (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR   15,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR   7,000 for costs and expenses. ( The judgment is available in English and French .)   1.     Principal facts   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.   Mr   Paladi complained, in particular, 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.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   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 [2] at the Government’s request. The Grand Chamber held a hearing in Strasbourg on 14   May 2008.   Judgment was given by the Grand Chamber of 17 judges, composed as follows:   Jean-Paul Costa (France), President , Peer Lorenzen (Denmark), Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), Elisabet Fura-Sandström (Sweden), Karel Jungwiert (the Czech Republic), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Sverre Erik Jebens (Norway) Ján Šikuta (Slovakia), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Mark Villiger (Liechtenstein), Giorgio Malinverni (Switzerland), Luis López Guerra (Spain), András Sajó (Hungary), Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska (“the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia”), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), Işıl Karakaş (Turkey), judges, Danute Jočienė (Lithuania), Renate Jaeger (Germany), substitute judges , and also Vincent Berger , Jurisconsult .   3.     Summary of the judgment [3]   Complaints   Relying on Articles   3 and   5, Mr   Paladi complained about the unlawfulness of his detention pending trial and that, during that time, he was not given appropriate medical care. He also alleged 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.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Reiterating the Chamber’s reasoning as set out in the judgment of 10 July 2007, the Court noted that during his detention Mr Paladi had not been provided with the level of medical assistance required by his condition, which was considered serious by several medical specialists. In consequence, it held that he had been subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention.   Article 5 § 1   The Court reiterated that Mr Paladi’s continued pre-trial detention after 22 October 2004, without a judge being required to rule on the appropriateness of such a decision, reflected a common practice that the Court had already held to be contrary to the Convention in a series of cases against Moldova. Confirming the Chamber judgment, which had been adopted unanimously and to which the parties had raised no objections, the Court concluded that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1.   Articles 5 §§ 3 and 4   The Court held unanimously that it was not necessary to examine separately the applicant’s complaints under Article   5   §§   3 and   4, given that there had been no legal basis for the applicant’s detention.   Article 34   The Court reiterated that interim measures that it might have cause to adopt under Rule   39 of its Rules of Court served to ensure the effectiveness of the right of individual petition established by Article 34 of the Convention. There would be a breach of Article 34 if the authorities of a Contracting State failed to take all steps which could reasonably have been taken in order to comply with the measure indicated by the Court. In addition, it was not open to a Contracting State to substitute its own judgment for that of the Court in verifying whether or not there existed a real risk of immediate and irreparable damage to an applicant at the time when the interim measure was indicated or in deciding on the time-limits for complying with such a measure.   In this particular case, the interim measure issued by the Court on 10 November 2005, required the Moldovan authorities to refrain from transferring the applicant from the RNC to another establishment. The Court noted that it was not disputed between the parties that on 11   November 2005 Mr Paladi was no longer at the neurological centre, but in the prison hospital. It also noted that there was nothing to support the Government’s submission that the applicant had been transferred to the prison hospital before the Government had found out about the interim measure. The Court therefore concluded that the interim measure had not been complied with.   As to whether the failure to comply with the interim measure could be explained by the existence of objective impediments, the Court noted that the Moldovan authorities had shown negligence and passivity that were incompatible with their obligations under Article 34. This was the case both at the level of the Government Agent, responsible for transferring the interim measure immediately to the relevant judicial authorities, and at the level of these judicial authorities, which had had responsibility for adopting a decision to prevent the transfer.   Finally, the Court held that the fact that the risk to the applicant’s health which had led it to indicate the interim measure had not ultimately materialised did not alter the fact that the authorities had failed in their obligations. Consequently, there had been a violation of Article   34 of the Convention.     Judge Costa, Judge   Malinverni and Judge Šikuta each expressed a partly dissenting opinion. Judges Costa, Jungwiert, Myjer, Sajó, Lazarova Trajkovska and Karakaş concurred with Judge Malinverni’s partly dissenting opinion. Judge Myjer expressed a partly dissenting opinion, with which Judge Sajó concurred. Judge Sajó also expressed a second dissenting opinion. The texts of these opinions are annexed to the judgment.     ***   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] Grand Chamber judgments are final (Article 44 of the Convention). [2] 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.   [3] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.