CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;ENG — 27 novembre 2003

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .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 } .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 } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .s9F8EB0C0 { width:18.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9E97F54A { width:85.05pt; 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 } EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS     608   27.11.2003   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF HENAF v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Henaf v. France (application no. 65436/01). 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.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Albert Hénaf, is a French national who was born in 1925 and is currently in prison in Nantes.   During the past few years he has been convicted of various offences. In particular, he was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment for armed robbery and was given several prison sentences for making off without payment. He was also sentenced to six months’ imprisonment in 1998 for failing to return to prison after a period of leave; the experts who examined him on that occasion attributed his conduct to a psychological disorder that had impaired his powers of judgment, especially in view of his advanced age.   On 7 November 2000 the applicant was transferred to Pellegrin Hospital in Bordeaux to undergo an operation the following day. The prison governor had given instructions on the conditions in which the applicant was to be taken to hospital, requesting the presence of police officers to escort and watch over him throughout his time there, keeping him under a normal level of supervision left to the discretion of the officer in charge of the escort.   The applicant was handcuffed while being taken to hospital and remained handcuffed for the rest of the day. The night before the operation, the applicant was chained by the ankle to a bedpost. Complaining of the inhuman conditions of his stay in hospital, the applicant refused to be operated on and returned to prison. He lodged a criminal complaint against the police officers who had escorted him, alleging serious ill-treatment, assault and torture. In May 2001 his complaint was declared inadmissible because a sum to cover costs had not been paid into court.   After serving his sentence, the applicant was released on 1 October 2001. He has subsequently been imprisoned in connection with other proceedings.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 13 November 2000 and declared admissible on 24 January 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Giovanni Bonello (Maltese), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Egil Levits (Latvian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaint   The applicant complained, on account of his age and state of health, about the conditions of his stay in hospital and maintained that he had been subjected to treatment contrary to Article   3 of the Convention.   Decision of the Court   As regards the danger posed by the applicant, the Court noted that he had several previous convictions but that there had not been any explicit reference to acts of violence. Admittedly, in 1998 he had not returned to prison after a period of leave, but that event, which, according to the experts, had resulted from a “psychological disorder”, had been non-violent and isolated.   In the Court’s opinion, it had not been established that the applicant posed a danger at the material time. That was sufficiently clear from the prison governor’s instructions recommending a normal and not a reinforced level of supervision while the applicant was being transferred to hospital and during his time there. In any event, the degree of danger he allegedly posed could not justify attaching him to his hospital bed the night before his operation, particularly as two police officers had remained on guard outside his room.   Having regard to the applicant’s age, his state of health, the absence of any previous conduct giving serious grounds to fear that he represented a security risk, the prison governor’s written instructions recommending a normal and not a reinforced level of supervision and the fact that he had been taken to hospital the day before he had been due to undergo an operation, the Court considered that the restrictions on his movement had been disproportionate to the security requirements, particularly as two police officers had been specially placed on guard outside his room.   The Court considered it helpful to observe that in its report to the French Government following its visit in May 2000, the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) had recommended, among other things, that the practice of attaching prisoners to their hospital beds for security reasons be outlawed.   In those circumstances, the national authorities’ treatment of the applicant had not been compatible with Article 3 of the Convention.   ***   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 Press 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 by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments. More detailed information about the Court and its activities can be found on its Internet site. [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.