CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 avril 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s21338552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt } .s34B51DD { font-family:Arial; font-size:10.5pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } 323 20.04.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1]   Slyusarev v. Russia (application no. 60333/00)   MAKING A DETAINEE WAIT FIVE MONTHS BEFORE RETURNING HIS DAMAGED GLASSES TO HIM AND ANOTHER TWO MONTHS FOR HIS NEW GLASSES AMOUNTED TO DEGRADING TREATMENT   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Vladimir Slyusarev, is a Russian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Moscow. He is very short-sighted.   Mr Slyusarev was arrested on 2 July 1998 on suspicion of armed robbery; at some point during his apprehension his glasses were damaged and confiscated. Following his confession and signed written statement, criminal proceedings were brought against him. He was also subsequently charged with several counts of fraud, unrelated to the robbery. On 15   June 1999 he was found guilty of those charges and sentenced to nine years’ imprisonment, upheld on appeal.   According to Mr Slyusarev, while in pre-trial detention, he and his wife complained on five occasions to the prosecution authorities about the deterioration of his eyesight and requested that his glasses be returned to him.   According to the Government, he had only complained in December 1998 about his glasses having been taken away.   Following an order by the prosecution on 9 September 1998, the applicant was examined by an optician. The specialist concluded that his eyesight had dropped and prescribed new glasses. In January 1999 he received those new glasses. In the meantime, the applicant’s old glasses were returned to him on 2   December   1998 following a formal request made by his lawyer.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Mr Slyusarev complained about his glasses having been taken away from him shortly after his arrest and that – still in pre-trial detention – they had only been returned to him five months later. He relied on Article   3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment).   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 25   April   2000 and declared partly admissible on 9 November 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Josep Casadevall (Andorra), President , Corneliu Bîrsan (Romania), Boštjan M. Zupančič (Slovenia), Anatoly Kovler (Russia), Alvina Gyulumyan (Armenia), Egbert Myjer (the Netherlands), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court considered that the applicant, unable to read or write normally without his glasses, had to have suffered from such a situation. Indeed, that situation had to have created a lot of distress in the applicant’s everyday life and made him feel insecure and helpless.   Contrary to the Government’s claim, the prosecution had to have been aware of the applicant’s problem well before 2 December 1998 as a medical examination by an optician had been ordered in September 1998 following a request lodged by the defence some time earlier. Despite that examination, it had then taken the authorities almost five months to procure the new glasses prescribed for him. In the meantime, the applicant’s old glasses could have been given back to him as, even if damaged, they could have alleviated some of his difficulties. Instead they had only been returned after five months’ of his pre-trial detention. The Government gave no explanation for these shortcomings. Nor did they explain why the applicant had only been examined by a specialist after two and half months’ detention.   Moreover, taking the applicant’s glasses could not be explained in terms of the “practical demands of imprisonment” and had been unlawful in domestic terms. Given the degree of the applicant’s suffering, mainly imputable to the authorities, and its duration, the Court concluded that the applicant had been subjected to degrading treatment, in violation of Article 3.   The applicant had not submitted any claim under Article 41 (just satisfaction).   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Further information about the Court can be found on the Court’s Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int )   Press contacts Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : 00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) 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) Nina Salomon (telephone: 00 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.