CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 15 janvier 2004

.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 } .s40F41F73 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s1C7BEF1E { margin-left:28.52pt; padding-left:7.48pt; font-family:serif } .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   017 15.1.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF MATENCIO v. FRANCE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Matencio v. France (application no. 58749/00).   The Court held by six votes to one that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and unanimously that no separate issue arose under Article 2 (right to life) of the Convention.   (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Joël Matencio, is a French national born in 1948. When he lodged his application he was in Poissy Prison serving a life sentence imposed on him in 1981 for murder.   On 8 December 1995 he suffered a stroke, following which he had to spend 16 months in hospital at Fresnes Prison and was left with neurological damage. Since then, he has been paralysed on the right side of his body and has suffered, in particular, from speech difficulties. His degree of disablement was assessed at 80% in 1997.   After his stay in hospital, the applicant was transferred at his own request to Poissy Prison in order to have a cell with disabled facilities and to be near his family and friends. Medical certificates issued in 1999 by the doctor in charge of the prison’s Outpatient Consultation and Treatment Unit indicated, among other things, that the applicant was suffering serious after-effects which required constant treatment, together with physiotherapy to restore function.   After the doctor had expressed concerns about the applicant’s health, the governor of Poissy Prison informed the applicant in June 2000 that he had tried to find a way of providing him with round-the-clock medical care. As Poissy Prison did not have any arrangements for permanent medical assistance, he proposed that the applicant be transferred to a prison in Paris, where a doctor was in attendance day and night and where he would have a cell to himself. The applicant rejected that proposal. In a letter to the National Inspectorate of Social Affairs, he pointed out that he was not requesting a transfer to another prison but was asking to be given appropriate treatment, as his friends and family lived in the Poissy region.   It further appears from a letter sent in December 2000 from International Prison Watch to the regional prison authorities that the applicant had not given any instructions to seek to have him transferred to another prison and that the treatment he was receiving in Poissy Prison seemed adequate in view of his medical condition.   After being taken ill in February 2001 the applicant was rushed to hospital for a short stay. On 26 November 2001 the regional parole court at the Versailles Court of Appeal held that his condition required treatment which could no longer be provided to him in a prison environment and released him on parole with effect from 14 December 2001.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 8 March 2000 and declared admissible on 7 November 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Christos Rozakis (Greek), President , Peer Lorenzen (Danish), Jean-Paul Costa (French), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Egil Levits (Latvian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   Relying on Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained of his continued detention and the conditions in which he had been detained despite being seriously ill.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of the Convention   As to whether the applicant’s state of health was compatible with his detention, the Court noted that French law allowed the national authorities to intervene where detainees were suffering from serious medical problems. The judicial procedures introduced by the laws of 15 June 2000 and 4 March 2002 were capable of providing sufficient guarantees to ensure the protection of prisoners’ health and well-being, which States had to reconcile with the legitimate requirements of a custodial sentence. For example, under the Law of 15 June 2000 a prisoner’s health could be taken into account in a decision to grant parole where the prisoner had “to undergo treatment”. In addition, the Law of 4 March 2002 on patients’ rights allowed prisoners’ sentences to be suspended if they were suffering from a life-threatening illness or if their condition was incompatible in the long term with their continued detention.   However, he could not have been released on parole until he satisfied the eligibility requirements – in 2001 – and the possibility of having his sentence suspended had not existed at the time.   As to whether the applicant’s continued detention had attained a sufficient level of severity to amount to treatment in breach of Article 3, the Court noted that the applicant’s degree of autonomy had enabled him to “look after his everyday needs, personal hygiene and diet and, above all, to read and write, which seems to be of fundamental importance to him”.   Moreover, the applicant had rejected the proposal by the governor of Poissy Prison to transfer him to a prison where medical care was available on a permanent basis. In his letter to the National Inspectorate of Social Affairs the applicant had pointed out that he had never asked to be transferred and had merely demanded appropriate treatment. In that connection, the Court noted that a letter from International Prison Watch had emphasised that the treatment and care received by the applicant in Poissy Prison were adequate in view of his medical condition.   The Court observed that the applicant had been transferred to Poissy Prison at his own request after his stay in hospital. Furthermore, he had not disputed that in the first quarter of 2000 he had refused a transfer to Fresnes Prison hospital in order to receive comprehensive medical treatment appropriate to his condition.   That being so, the Court considered that it had not been established that the applicant had been subjected to treatment attaining a sufficient level of severity to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention.   Article 2 of the Convention   The Court considered that no separate issue arose under Article 2 of the Convention.     Judge Tulkens 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 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.