CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 1 décembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sEABE4E75 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   904 01.12.2009   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Jeronovics v. Latvia (application no. 547/02)       PRISONER PREVENTED FROM APPEARING AT SUPREME COURT HEARING AND SUBJECTED TO DEGRADING TREATMENT DURING TRANSFERS   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial within a reasonable time) Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights     (The judgment is available only in French.)     Principal facts   The applicant, Viktors Jeronovičs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1962 and is currently in Šķirotava Prison in Riga (Latvia). In 2000 he was sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment for armed robbery with violence. He appealed on points of law against that judgment on 28 December 2001 and the appeal was set down for hearing on 15 January 2002. Mr Jeronovičs was given notice of the date and time of the hearing on 9 January 2002. The following day he asked the prison authorities to arrange for his transfer to the Supreme Court so that he could attend the hearing. No action was taken.   The applicant was transferred several times between Grīva Prison and Daugavpils Prison, situated in the same city. Before departure and on arrival he was placed in an isolation cell. In the cell in Grīva Prison, where he was held in April 2005, the applicant claimed to have had to sleep on a bunk without a mattress and without access to daylight. On his arrival at Daugavpils Prison, and before his departure, he was placed in a room measuring 1.5 sq. m, without windows or sanitary facilities. When he arrived he spent five hours there without sleeping owing to the cramped conditions and before his departure in May 2005 he remained there for over eight hours with two fellow prisoners. In June 2005 Mr Jeronovičs lodged a criminal complaint with the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office concerning his conditions of detention. The complaint was rejected on the ground that the transfer procedure had complied with the rules.   Mr Jeronovičs was again placed in an isolation cell in October 2005 with a view to his transfer to the Regional Court some 90 kilometres away, having been informed that his appeal – in the context of the proceedings he had brought to contest the prison board’s refusal to place him under a more favourable prison regime – was due to be examined there. He remained in isolation for 17 hours without eating, having refused to take his meal sitting on the ground. On arrival at the Regional Court the following day he was once more placed in isolation. By the time the hearing began he had therefore spent 27 hours without eating or sleeping. The Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and in November 2005 he wrote to the Ministry of Justice complaining of his ill-treatment at the hands of the prison authorities. He received a reply suggesting that he apply in writing to the public prosecutor’s office.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial), the applicant complained that the prison authorities had prevented him from appearing at the Supreme Court hearing in his case. Under Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment), he complained of the conditions in which he had been held during his numerous transfers.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 October 2001.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President, Elisabet Fura (Sweden), Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (The Netherlands), Ann Power (Ireland), Judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .   Decision of the Court   Article   6   §   1   The applicant had not at any point waived his right to appear before the Supreme Court and had expressly requested the prison authorities, five days before the hearing, to arrange for his transfer. The Government spoke of a “last-minute” request; the Court, however, could discern no lack of diligence on the part of Mr Jeronovičs, who had been prevented from appearing, without a lawyer being able to submit observations on his behalf. There had therefore been a breach of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 § 1.     Article 3   While the conditions of detention in Grīva Prison had been disputed between the parties, with regard to Daugavpils Prison it had not been disputed that on arrival and before departure the applicant had been locked in an extremely cramped cell (approximately 1.5 sq. m) without windows or sanitary facilities, first for five hours without sleeping and then for eight hours.   In October 2005, while awaiting transfer to the Regional Court, Mr Jeronovičs had again spent around 17 hours in isolation in Daugavpils Prison without being able to sleep or eat, before being transferred to the temporary isolation cell pending the hearing. The Government had not disputed either the description of the conditions there or the applicant’s assertion that he had been deprived of food and sleep for 27 hours continuously.   The Court considered that, although they had lasted for a relatively short time, the conditions thus described had been objectively apt to undermine Mr Jeronovičs’ dignity. The threshold of severity which characterised treatment contrary to Article 3 had been exceeded, even if the authorities had not intended to humiliate the applicant.   Article 41   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) the Court awarded the applicant 5,000 euros for non ‑ pecuniary damage.     *** This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)   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.