CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 19 avril 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 } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sD1986A30 { margin-left:28.52pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .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 } .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 } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s3133A7C8 { font-family:Arial; color:#0069d6 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS   279   19.4.2001   Press release issued by the Registrar   JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF PEERS v. GREECE   In a judgment [1] notified in writing in the case Peers v. Greece (application number 28524/95), 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 unanimously, that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 2 (presumption of innocence) of the Convention by six votes to one,   that there had been a violation of Article 8 (right to respect for correspondence).   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 5,000,000 Greek drachmas for non-pecuniary damage.   1.     Principal facts   Donald Peers is a British national. On August 1994 Mr Peers, who had been treated for heroin addiction in the United Kingdom, was arrested at Athens Airport on drug-related charges. On 24 August he was taken to Koridallos prison in Greece as a remand prisoner. He was subsequently convicted.   He was first detained in the prison’s psychiatric hospital before being moved to the segregation unit of Delta wing and then, Alpha wing. In Delta wing, he claimed he shared a small cell with one other prisoner, with an open toilet, which often failed to work, in hot, cramped conditions with little natural light and no ventilation. In Alpha wing, conditions were also cramped and unhygienic, he claimed. He had no access to vocational courses or activities or a library.   2.     Composition of the Court   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   András Baka (Hungarian), President , Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Viera Strážnická (Slovakian), Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Marc Fischbach (Luxemburger), Egils Levits (Latvian), judges , C.D. Spinellis (Greek), ad hoc judge ,   and also Erik Fribergh , Section Registrar . 3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention violated Article 3 of the Convention. He also relied on Article 6 § 2, in that the treatment of remand and convicted prisoners was identical, and Article 8, in that letters addressed to him by the European Commission of Human Rights were opened by the prison administration.   Decision of the Court   Article 3   Although the Court considered that there was no evidence of a positive intention of humiliating or debasing the applicant, the absence of any such purpose could not conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of Article   3.   The fact that the competent authorities had taken no steps to improve the objectively unacceptable conditions of the applicant’s detention denoted lack of respect for the applicant.   The Court took particularly into account that, for at least two months, the applicant had to spend a considerable part of each 24-hour period practically confined to his bed in a cell, with no ventilation and no window, which would at times become unbearably hot. He also had to use the toilet in the presence of another inmate and be present while the toilet was being used by his cellmate. The Court was of the opinion that the prison conditions complained of diminished the applicant’s human dignity and gave rise in him to feelings of anguish and inferiority capable of humiliating and debasing him and possibly breaking his physical or moral resistance. The Court therefore considered that the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the segregation unit of the Delta wing of the Koridallos prison amounted to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.   Article 6 § 2   The Court recalled that the Convention contains no Article providing for separate treatment for convicted and accused prisoners.   Article 8   The Court noted that the Commission’s letters to the applicant were opened and that there was, therefore, an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his correspondence. As the Court found no compelling reasons for the monitoring of the relevant correspondence, whose confidentiality it was important to respect, the interference complained of was not necessary in a democratic society within the meaning of Article 8 § 2.     Judge Spinellis expressed a dissenting opinion, which is annexed to the judgment.   *** 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] The judgment is available only in English [2] .     This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.