CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 20 mai 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s57219A41 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:432pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } 407 20.05.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Engel v. Hungary (application no. 46857/06)   PARAPLEGIC SERVING A LIFE SENTENCE DETAINED IN DEGRADING CONDITIONS   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) of the European Convention on Human Rights        Principal facts   The applicant, Zoltán Engel, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1962 and lived in Szeged (Hungary).   He was sentenced to life in prison for having shot and killed a police officer and wounded another one during an exchange of shots with the police after they caught him committing an armed robbery in May 2003. He became paralysed from the waist down as a result of wounds he sustained during that shooting. Ever since, he is 100% disabled, suffers from incontinence, and only moves in a wheelchair.   Between 25 February and 15 December 2006, Mr Engel was detained in Szeged Prison. According to him, he could only wash or relieve himself if his cell-mates helped him. Because of harassment from fellow inmates on account of his disability and incontinence, he did not participate in the open-air stays. In addition, the surface of the courtyard assigned for open-air activities was uneven, hence unsuitable for a wheelchair. Classified as a high security level prisoner Mr Engel was always transported with his hands handcuffed to his belt. While being transported in a van without a safety belt, he could only keep himself in his wheelchair by leaning his head against the door of the transporting vehicle which caused him swelling and pain. When entering or exiting the van, he was regularly dragged by his belt, sometimes on the ground, which caused him bruises. On one occasion, while transported to Budapest to stand trial, he spent five hours waiting in an admission cell and was not given water nor could he change his diapers. In addition, while transported in the van, he had fallen off his wheel-chair on a road curve and had travelled the rest of the journey on the van’s floor, hands handcuffed to his belt and under his body. He asked for a medical check-up on the next day but was told he could only see a doctor the following week. He complained to the prosecution about the incident, however the criminal investigation opened as a result was discontinued for want of evidence.   According to the prison’s medical service, Mr Engel suffered among other things from high blood pressure, overweight, paraplegia and a neurotic bladder. His transfer to a specialised penitentiary was recommended earlier but taken up by the prison administration only on 15 December 2006 when he was transferred to a different prison and placed in a single cell specially designed for disabled prisoners.   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article   3 the applicant complained about the conditions in which he had been detained and transported.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 21 September 2006.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Françoise Tulkens (Belgium), President, Ireneu Cabral Barreto (Portugal), Danutė Jočienė (Lithuania), Dragoljub Popović (Serbia), András Sajó (Hungary), Nona Tsotsoria (Georgia), Isil Karakas (Turkey), judges,   and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   The Court noted that the applicant, a paraplegic, had been left to the mercy of his cell mates for matters such as using the toilet, bathing and getting dressed or undressed throughout the period he had spent in Szeged prison, namely between 25 February 2005 and 15 December 2006. The Court also found that this had been a continuous situation which it examined in its entirety.   Mr Engel’s complaints had not been refuted by the Government as regards the time before August 2006. The Court found particularly regretful the practice of dragging the applicant on the floor to and from the transport van and that of leaving his wheelchair unsecured in a moving vehicle. In addition, the classification of the applicant as a high level security prisoner and his handcuffing had added to the hardship he had endured while transported. The Court further found that the delayed access by Mr Engel to medical help following his alleged fall during the transportation in the van was not compatible with the Hungarian authorities’ obligation to investigate effectively any complaints of ill-treatment.   Consequently, the Court concluded that Mr Engel had been subjected to degrading treatment during the entire time he had spent in Szeged prison. His transfer on15 December 2010 to an institution adequate for his needs as a disabled prisoner had come too late.   There had therefore been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court held that Hungary was to pay the applicant 12,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,800 for costs and expenses.   ***   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   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or   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.