CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 22 juin 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 } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s8304C6AF { font-family:Arial; font-size:7.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .sE22B0691 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:11pt } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sC90828B6 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s5FFF0A7E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:8pt } .sCC018295 { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } 500 22.06.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Gavriliţă v. Romania (application no. 10921/03)     AUTHORITIES DID NOT FAIL IN DUTY TO PROVIDE SICK PRISONER WITH MEDICAL CARE   No Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant Anatolii Gavriliţă, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Căuşani, Moldova. On 30 October 2000 he was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking and was remanded in custody on police premises in Constanţa. He stayed there until he was transferred to Poarta Albă detention centre on 15 March 2001. In October that same year he was given a three-year prison sentence for drug trafficking and was released on licence on 9   April 2003.   On his arrival at the Poarta Albă detention centre Mr Gavriliţă was declared “clinically healthy” by the doctor, as he had been in 2000 when examined by a radiologist.   On 2 April 2001, after medical tests, the applicant was diagnosed with syphilis, for which he was treated from 18 April to 14 June 2001 at the hospital attached to Poarta Albă detention centre. On his discharge the head doctor’s report noted that he was suffering from “recent latent syphilis”, which was cured in July 2001, and anaemia.   The applicant fell ill again and was re-admitted to hospital. On 24 March 2003, after undergoing tests for tuberculosis at the request of the head doctor, he was transferred to the hospital of Jilava detention centre, in Bucharest, with the recommendation that he follow a “specific treatment” for that complaint. The diagnosis of “secondary tuberculosis” was confirmed there on 25 March 2003. According to the Romanian Government, Mr Gavriliţă had received “non-specific” treatment, as the evolution of his condition had been “stable”. He was given aspirin and sedatives for his fever and headaches, as well as, according to the Government, antibiotics to treat the tuberculosis.   When he was released on 9 April 2003, the applicant was still suffering from the complaint and was treated for it until December 2003.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained in particular that he had contracted tuberculosis while being held in the Poarta Albă detention centre and insisted on the suffering he had been through as a result of the ensuing medical treatment he had had to follow after his release. He further complained more generally about the conditions of his detention that, he alleged, had caused his illness.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 3 February 2003.   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), Ineta Ziemele (Latvia), Luis López Guerra (Spain), Ann Power (Ireland), Judges , and also Santiago Quesada , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   There was no evidence in the file to show that the applicant had complained to the prison authorities before the test of 25 March 2003 that he might have tuberculosis. Moreover, the authorities could not be criticised for not carrying out systematic tests for tuberculosis on the arrival of each inmate.   As soon as the applicant had been diagnosed with tuberculosis, the head doctor had recommended that he be transferred to the hospital attached to Jilava detention centre and that he be given specific treatment.   Admittedly, the applicant did not receive such specific treatment at the Jilava centre but the the Court recalled that that situation had only lasted 14 days (between 25 March 2003 – when he was tested for the illness – and 9 April 2003 – when he was released). Moreover, during that time he had nonetheless benefited from treatment for fever and headaches.   As concerned the treatment followed after his release, the Court noted that that had been necessary as treatment against tuberculosis could last for several months and even be extended to avoid the emergence of resistant strains, whose evolution was often much worse.   Concerning the applicant’s complains about the conditions of his detention, Mr Gavriliţă had only referred, in vague and incoherent terms, to general “living conditions” in Poarta Albă prison.   The Court found that it could not be concluded from the material in the case file or from any report of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) that the living conditions in Poarta Albă detention centre had been so insalubrious, unhygienic or overcrowded at the relevant time that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had had a negative impact on his health.   The Court thus held, by five votes to two, that there had been no violation of Article 3.   Judges Ziemele and Power expressed separate opinions that are annexed to the judgment.     ***   The judgment is available only in French. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its website .   Press contacts [email protected] / +33 3 90 21 42 08   Céline Menu-Lange (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Stefano Piedimonte (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone : + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Frédéric Dolt (telephone : + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Nina Salomon (telephone : + 33 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 Articles   43   and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on the   day the   request is rejected. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution.