CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sF514A5EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:396pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; 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 } .s963A75C0 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; color:#000000 } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE32676A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sEE1EDB13 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .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 }   150 23.02.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Đe rmanovic v. Serbia (application no. 48497/06)   PRISON AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR DETAINEE’S POOR HEALTH IF HE CONTRIBUTED TO THIS CONDITION   Unanimously   Violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights   No violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment)   Principal facts   The applicant, Dušan Đermanović, is a Serbian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Novi Sad (Serbia). In March 2003 a criminal investigation was opened against him on suspicion of abuse of power and forging official documents. About two months later, the district court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand on the grounds that there was a risk of flight. After the applicant’s appeal against the order had been dismissed, he was eventually detained in February 2004. His subsequent request to be released on bail was dismissed. In November 2004 the district court sentenced him to four and a half years imprisonment.   In June 2005 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment and remitted the case, ordering at the same time the applicant’s continued detention. Several requests by the applicant to be released on bail were dismissed. A second judgment by the district court in May 2006, which reduced the applicant’s prison sentence, was quashed by the Supreme Court. In June 2007 the district court sentenced him to four years imprisonment. The applicant was released, but was ordered not to leave his habitual place of residence and to report to the court each month.   During his detention, the applicant suffered from severe health problems including Hepatitis C, diagnosed in the end of 2006. He complained that his health had deteriorated to a large extent owing to the duration of his detention and requested to be released on account of inadequate medical care. A few weeks after the diagnosis, the applicant went on a hunger strike. When transferred to a prison hospital because of a deterioration of his liver condition as a result of the hunger strike, he refused to be examined.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that the medical treatment afforded to him during his detention had been inadequate and that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 24. November 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Vladimiro Zagrebelsky (Italy), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), judges,   and also Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   The Court first noted that there was no evidence the authorities had failed to ensure prompt discovery of the applicant’s infection with Hepatitis C. In fact, the applicant had discovered his infection through voluntary counselling offered to him in detention. In the absence of any obvious earlier symptoms, the State could therefore not be reproached for failing to diagnose his illness in a timelier manner.   The Court further observed that during the seven months between his diagnosis and his release from detention the applicant had not started medication-based treatment for his infection. However, he had undergone a liver biopsy, numerous blood tests and examinations by specialised doctors.   It was regrettable that two months had elapsed before the applicant’s first examination by an infectious diseases specialist. However, the applicant had himself substantially delayed the identification of the damage to his liver by going on a hunger strike and refusing to be examined in hospital. In doing so, he had showed little concern for his state of health and could therefore not hold the authorities responsible for the deterioration of his medical condition during detention.   The Court therefore unanimously concluded that there had been no violation of Article 3.   Article 5 § 3   The Court noted that the period of pre-trial detention to be taken into consideration, including the two terms after the judgments against the applicant had been quashed, amounted to two years and two months. His detention had been regularly extended by the authorities, every time on the grounds that there was a risk of absconding, as the applicant had been unavailable to the authorities at the outset of the investigation. The Court considered that this might have been an acceptable justification for the initial placement in custody. The domestic courts had not verified, however, whether this ground remained valid at the advanced stage of the proceedings.   Furthermore, the authorities had failed to consider alternative means of ensuring the applicant’s presence at the trial, such as the seizure of his travel documents. Moreover, his applications for release were rejected even after he had been detained for a period equivalent to three-quarters of the prison sentence imposed on him by both – ultimately quashed – judgments and despite his aggravated health condition.   The Court therefore unanimously held that the grounds on which the applicant’s pre-trial detention had been extended could not be regarded as sufficient, in violation of Article 5 § 3.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. 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   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) 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) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 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] 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.