CEDH · PRESS;FORTHCOMINGJUDGMENTS;ENG — 11 septembre 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 } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4B8D41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt } .sA99CEC23 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:5pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s7C768949 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0000ff } .s9AE6264A { margin-top:5pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt }   641 11.09.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   FORTHCOMING GRAND CHAMBER JUDGMENT   17 September 2009   The European Court of Human Rights will deliver its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Enea v. Italy (application no. 74912/01) in a public hearing on 17 September 2009 at 10   a.m. (local time) in the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg. The applicant, who was imprisoned on account of his membership of a Mafia-type organisation, complains in particular of the harsh nature of the prison regimes under which he was detained despite his serious health conditions. The press release and the text of the judgment will be available after the hearing on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Summary of facts   The applicant, Salvatore Enea, is an Italian national who was born in 1938. He was sentenced to 30 years’ imprisonment for, among other offences, membership of a Mafia-type criminal organisation, and has been in detention since 23 December 1993.   On 10 August 1994, in view of the danger posed by the applicant, the Minister of Justice issued a decree ordering that he be subject for one year to the special prison regime provided for in the second paragraph of section 41 bis of the Prison Administration Act. This provision allows application of the ordinary prison regime to be suspended in whole or in part for reasons of public order and safety. The decree imposed restrictions on, among other things, family visits (one hour-long visit per month) and the number of parcels received; the applicant was also prohibited from seeing non-family members, using the telephone and organising and taking part in certain activities. In addition, his correspondence was monitored. Application of the special regime was extended until late 2005 by means of 19   decrees, each valid for a limited period.   Mr Enea lodged several appeals with the Naples court responsible for the execution of sentences, which on three occasions decided to ease some of the restrictions imposed on him. He did not lodge an appeal on points of law, maintaining that the Court of Cassation would have dismissed any such appeals as being devoid of purpose since the validity of the ministerial decrees in question had already expired when the court responsible for the execution of sentences gave its rulings. In late February 2005 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal against decree no. 19 and ordered application of the special regime to be discontinued.   On 1 March 2005 the prison authorities placed the applicant in a high-supervision ( Elevato Indice di Vigilanza – E.I.V.) unit, where certain very dangerous prisoners are held separately from other inmates.   Salvatore Enea has a number of health problems and was thus obliged to use a wheelchair. Between June 2000 and February 2005 he served his sentence in the part of the hospital wing of Naples prison reserved for prisoners detained under the section 41 bis regime. In October 2008 the Naples court responsible for the execution of sentences ordered a stay of execution of the applicant’s sentence, as his state of health had become incompatible with detention in prison. Mr Enea has since been subject to house arrest.   Complaints   The applicant alleges that his continued detention was contrary to Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular in view of his state of health.   He further contends, under Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy) that he was subject to substantial restrictions in the exercise of his right to a court in connection with the ministerial decrees making him subject to the section 41 bis regime and the prison authorities’ decision to place him in the E.I.V. unit.   Relying on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life), the applicant also complains of the restrictions placed on contact with his family and of the monitoring of his correspondence.   Finally, under Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion), he complains that he was unable to practise his religion, in particular by attending the funerals of his brother and girlfriend.   Procedure   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 31 August 2000 and was declared partly admissible on 23 September 2004. On 1 July 2008 the Chamber to which the case had been assigned relinquished jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber under Article 30 [1] of the Convention. A hearing was held on 5 November 2008.     ***   Press contacts Stefano Piedimonte (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) or Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 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) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   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] Where a case pending before a Chamber raises a serious question affecting the interpretation of the Convention or the protocols thereto, or where the resolution of a question before the Chamber might have a result inconsistent with a judgment previously delivered by the Court, the Chamber may, at any time before it has rendered its judgment, relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Grand Chamber, unless one of the parties to the case objects.