CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 14 novembre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s3964C3A3 { width:1.36pt; display:inline-block } .s901C2590 { width:56.7pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 }   EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     570   14.11.2002   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MOUISEL v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Mouisel v. France (application no. 67263/01). The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is in French only.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Jean Mouisel, is a French national, who was born in 1948 and lives in Fougaron (France).   On 12 June 1996 he was sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment for armed robbery, kidnapping and fraud. A medical certificate dated 8 January 1999 showed that the applicant was suffering from chronic lymphatic leukaemia. When his conditions worsened, he had chemotherapy sessions at hospital in the daytime. The applicant was put in chains during the journeys to the hospital and claims that during the chemotherapy sessions his feet were chained and one of his wrists attached to the bed. He decided to stop his medical treatment in June 2000, complaining of these conditions and of the guards’ aggressive behaviour towards him.   In order to determine whether the applicant’s state of health was compatible with his continued detention, a medical report was drawn up on 28 June 2000. It concluded that the applicant should be treated in a specialised clinic. On 19 July 2000 he was transferred to Muret Prison as a matter of urgency so that he could be near Toulouse Hospital. He was released on licence on 22 March 2001 subject to an obligation to undergo medical treatment or care.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 8 October 2000. In accordance with Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, the Court decided on 11 April 2001 that it should be treated as a matter of priority. It was declared partly admissible by the First Section of the Court on 21 March 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Egil Levits (Latvian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), judges , and also Erik Fribergh , Section Registrar .     3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he had been kept in detention despite being seriously ill and of the conditions of his detention.   Decision of the Court   The Court noted that the period to be taken into consideration in the case began on the date of the first medical report diagnosing the applicant’s condition, 8   January 1999, and ended with his release on licence on 22 March 2001.   The Court observed that a prisoner’s state of health, age or serious physical disability were factors that had to be taken into account under Article 3 of the Convention with regard to custodial sentences. Although there was no general obligation to release prisoners suffering from ill health, Article 3 required States to protect the physical integrity of persons who had been deprived of their liberty, notably by providing them with any necessary medical assistance. The Court also reiterated that the method of execution of the measure should not subject the person detained to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.   As to whether the applicant’s condition was incompatible with his continued detention, the Court noted that the authorities were permitted by French law to intervene in cases where prisoners were seriously ill. Under the Law of 15 June 2000, prisoners could be released on licence when they needed to receive treatment. Furthermore, by virtue of the Law of 4   March 2002 on the Rights of the Sick, prisoners’ sentences could be suspended if they were critically ill or suffering from a chronic condition that was incompatible with their continued detention. The Court thus noted that prisoners’ health was now a factor to be taken into account in determining how a prison sentence was to be served, notably regarding its length. However, it accepted that, in the case before it, neither remedy had been available to the applicant during the period concerned, as he did not satisfy the conditions required to obtain release on licence and the law allowing sentences to be suspended had not by that stage been passed.   As to the consequences of continued detention and the conditions in which the applicant was held, the Court found that although his condition had become increasingly incompatible with his continued detention as his illness progressed, the prison authorities had failed to take any special measures. Furthermore, although it had not been proved that the applicant was held in chains when he received treatment, there was no doubt that he was handcuffed on journeys to and from hospital. In view of his condition, the fact that he had been admitted to hospital, the nature of the treatment and the applicant’s frailty, the Court considered that that measure was disproportionate to the security risk posed. It noted that there was nothing to suggest that there was any significant risk of his absconding or resorting to violence. Lastly, the Court observed that the aforementioned treatment on transfers fell foul of the recommendations of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture regarding the conditions in which prisoners are transferred and medically examined.   In the Court’s view, the national authorities failed to have sufficient regard to the applicant’s condition. His continued detention, especially from June 2000 onwards, undermined his dignity and constituted particularly acute hardship that caused suffering beyond that which was inevitable with a prison sentence or treatment for cancer. Consequently, the Court held that the applicant’s continued detention amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.       ***   The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).   Registry of the European Court of Human Rights F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex Contacts:   Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)   Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54) Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. On 1 November 1998 a full-time Court was established, replacing the original two-tier system of a part-time Commission and Court. [1] .     Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, 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. [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.