CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 6 mars 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s94935B0F { width:389.85pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s4060989B { margin-left:10.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sCB27B9E { width:16.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC5412BEF { width:51.05pt; display:inline-block } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   156   6.3.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar     JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DOUGOZ v. GREECE   In a judgment notified in writing today [1] in the case of Dougoz v. Greece, the European Court of Human Rights held unanimously that there had been:   a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and a violation of Article 5 §§ 1 and 4 (right to liberty and security).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000,000 drachmas for non-pecuniary damage, legal costs and expenses and noted that the applicant had not substantiated his claim for pecuniary damage.   1.     Principal facts and complaints   Mohamed Dougoz, a Syrian national, was allegedly sentenced to death in absentia in Syria. He had fled to Greece, where he was arrested and sentenced to imprisonment on several occasions, notably for drug-related offences. While in Greece, he was granted refugee status.   In June 1997, while serving a prison sentence, he asked to be sent back to Syria and claimed that he had been granted a reprieve there. In July 1997, following a decision ordering his release on licence and his expulsion to Syria, he was released and placed in police detention pending his expulsion. He was held for several months at the Drapetsona Police Station, where, he alleged, he was confined in an overcrowded and dirty cell with insufficient sanitary and sleeping facilities, scarce hot water, no fresh air or natural daylight and no yard in which to exercise. In April 1998, he was transferred to the Police Headquarters in Alexandras Avenue where, he claimed, conditions were similar to those in the Drapetsona detention centre, although there was natural light and air in the cells and adequate hot water. He remained there until 3   December 1998, the date of his expulsion to Syria.   On 2 February 1998 he applied for the expulsion order to be lifted. His application was refused, on the ground that he had previously claimed he was no longer subject to persecution in Syria, but no express ruling was made on the lawfulness of his continued detention.   Relying on Articles 3 and 5 §§ 1 and 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained about the conditions, lawfulness and length of his detention and the lack of available remedies under domestic law to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.   2. Decision of the Court [2]   Article 3   The Court noted that the applicant's allegations were corroborated by the conclusions of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT) report of 29   November 1994 regarding the Police Headquarters in Alexandras Avenue, which stressed that the cellular accommodation and detention regime were unsuitable for a period in excess of a few days, the occupancy levels being grossly excessive and the sanitary facilities appalling. Although the CPT had not visited the Drapetsona detention centre at that time, the Court noted that the Government had described the conditions in Alexandras as being the same as in Drapetsona. The Court also noted that the CPT revisited Alexandras Police Headquarters and the Drapetsona detention centre in 1999.   In the light of the above, the Court considered that the conditions of detention of the applicant in the Alexandras Police Headquarters and the Drapetsona detention centre, in particular the serious overcrowding and absence of sleeping facilities, combined with the inordinate length of his detention, amounted to degrading treatment contrary to Article   3.   Article 5 § 1   Considering whether the applicant’s detention was “lawful” for the purposes of Article 5 § 1, the Court noted that Section 27 § 6 of Law No.   1975/1991 provided for the detention of an alien on condition that the execution of an administrative order for expulsion taken by the Minister of Public Order was pending, and that the alien was considered to be a danger to public order or might abscond. However, the applicant’s expulsion was a judicial and not an administrative decision and the applicant was not considered a danger to public order or likely to abscond.   The Court further noted the Deputy Public Prosecutor of the Court of Cassation’s opinion, of 1 April 1993, that a ministerial decision on the detention of persons facing administrative expulsion (decision No.   4803/13/7A/18-26.6.92) applied by analogy in expulsion cases ordered by courts. The Court did not consider, however, that the opinion of a senior public prosecutor constituted a “law” of sufficient “quality” within the meaning of the Court's case-law.   Finding: violation of Article 5 § 1.   Article 5 § 4   The Court found that the applicant’s requests for release to the Ministers of Justice and Public Order, of 28   November 1997 and 26 July 1998, could not be considered effective remedies, because the ministers could decide either to reject or leave unanswered his requests. Moreover, in its decision of 11   May 1998, the indictments chamber of the first instance criminal court of Piraeus, sitting in camera , failed to rule on the applicant's claim concerning his detention.   The domestic legal system therefore did not provide the applicant with an opportunity to have the lawfulness of his detention pending expulsion determined by a national court, as required by Article 5 § 4.   Finding: violation of Article 5 § 4.   ***   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: (0)3 88 41 24 92)   Emma Hellyer (telephone: (0)3 90 21 42 15) Fax: (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.