CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 27 juillet 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 } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .s52B1583 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } 587 27.07.2010   Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment Not final [1]   Rokosz v. Poland (application no 15952/09)     DETENTION WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH applicant’S STATE OF HEALTH   Unanimously:   Violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Ryszard Rokosz, is a Polish national who was born in 1951 and is currently held in Białystok Prison (Poland). While he was serving various prison sentences, Białystok Regional Court granted him two months’ prison leave in 2007 for health reasons. It based its decision on an expert’s opinion indicating that Mr   Rokosz required urgent physiotherapy (following a plastic hip implant in 2003), and on another opinion to the effect that the treatment could not be provided to him in prison. The prison leave was extended a number of times, for about a year and a half in total, in the light of medical reports indicating that he required cardiological treatment outside the prison, particularly after a heart attack, and that his health problems were incurable and progressive and put his health and life at serious risk. The opinion of an expert cardiologist in November 2007 stated that to keep him in prison would entail a huge risk and might even be fatal, that he had to be permanently monitored by specialists, which no prison could guarantee, and that he needed rapid access to specialised healthcare.   On 3 November 2008 Mr   Rokosz was, however, returned to prison. His request for a stay of execution of his sentences on medical grounds was rejected on 16 December 2008 by Olsztyn District Court, which gave its decision after examining an expert cardiologist’s opinion of 6   September 2008 indicating that the combination of Mr   Rokosz’s illnesses represented a serious danger for his health and even for his life. The expert concluded that Mr   Rokosz was permanently unsuited for imprisonment, but pointed out that if the court should decide otherwise he would have to be placed in a prison with a hospital unit. Based on that latter comment by the expert, the court found that there were “no obstacles capable of continuing to prevent the enforcement of the sentences”. Mr   Rokosz appealed against that decision but was unsuccessful. On 27   February 2009 Olsztyn Regional Court found that his state of health, although worrying, did not justify suspending his sentence. Having regard to the experts’ opinions in the case file, it pointed out, among other things, that the applicant’s state of health was likely to decline, in any event, whether or not he was imprisoned.   Mr Rokosz requested prison leave on medical grounds, but that request was also rejected, on 6   April 2009, by the Regional Court of Gdańsk, which referred to the view of a manager of Gdańsk Prison hospital that he could receive treatment in detention. On 12   May 2009 Gdańsk Court of Appeal set aside that decision and referred the case back for reconsideration. It took the view that Mr   Rokosz’s state of health had to be re-examined by appropriately specialised experts and that it would be for them to conclude whether or not he should remain in prison.   On 19 May 2009 the panel of doctors indicated that he had a “significant” degree of permanent invalidity – which had already been recorded in 2001 – and stated that he was unfit for work and required the permanent assistance of a third party.   To date the Court of Appeal’s decision of 12 May 2009 has not been acted upon.     Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying on Article   3, Mr Rokosz complained that he had been kept in prison despite serious health problems and medical opinions that had repeatedly advised against his imprisonment. He further complained of the inadequate quality of medical assistance in the prison.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10   March 2009.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom), President , Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges , and also Lawrence Early , Section Registrar .     Decision of the Court   The Court reiterated that the lack of appropriate medical care and, more generally, the detention of a sick person in inadequate conditions, might in principle constitute treatment contrary to Article   3. It pointed out that, when the domestic authorities decided to place and maintain a sick person in prison, they had to take particular care that the conditions of his detention satisfied the specific needs resulting from his disability.   It was not in dispute that Mr   Rokosz was suffering from numerous chronic and serious health problems. The competent authorities had declared him completely unfit for work and took the view that he required permanent assistance by a third party on a daily basis. In addition, he was regarded by specialists as a patient with a high risk of death whose ultimate prognosis was uncertain and whose state of health was unlikely to improve. The Court observed that while Mr   Rokosz required constant and multidisciplinary therapeutic care, the Polish Government had not provided any information as to the nature or quality of his medical treatment in prison, nor even about the physical conditions of his detention.   The Court further observed that Mr   Rokosz had a number of times been granted prison leave, in particular on the ground that the prison system was unable to provide him with the treatment required by his state of health. In addition, the specialist doctors commissioned by the authorities had expressly concluded that he was permanently unfit to be imprisoned in view of the dangers that his ongoing imprisonment would entail for his ultimate prognosis. However, Mr   Rokosz had nevertheless been returned to prison in 2008 without there being, in the Court’s view, any argument whatsoever that would be capable of showing how his situation might have evolved such as to make him fit enough for detention. The decision of 6   April 2009 rejecting the request for prison leave had admittedly been set aside on appeal, but no other measure had subsequently been taken. In that connection, the Court condemned the fact that one year after the appeal judgment no medical examination – which the Court of Appeal had found necessary – had been conducted. The Court took the view that the delay showed that the authorities had not been as diligent in Mr   Rokosz’s case as his condition required.   The anxiety and discomfort that a seriously ill prisoner must have felt in such a situation, being aware that he was unfit for imprisonment and that, according to the specialists, he was a high-risk patient, combined with the suffering he had endured as a result of his illnesseswas in violation of Article   3.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) the Court held that Poland had to pay Mr   Rokosz 10,000   euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage, and EUR   100 for costs and expenses.   ***   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   Frédéric Dolt (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 53 39) Emma Hellyer (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 42 15) Tracey Turner-Tretz (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (telephone: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (telephone: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) 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 .