CEDH · PRESS;GENERAL;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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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   018 15.1.2004   Press release issued by the Registrar   CHAMBER JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SAKKOPOULOS v. GREECE   The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing a judgment [1] in the case of Sakkopoulos v. Greece (application no. 61828/00).   The Court held unanimously that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and a violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the Convention.   Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 15,000 euros (EUR) for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and EUR 3,500 for costs and expenses.     (The judgment is available only in French.)   1.     Principal facts   The applicant, Panagiotis Sakkopoulos, a Greek national born in 1934, was a mortgage registrar in Kropia (Attica).   He was accused of forgery causing significant financial loss (50 million Greek drachmas, equivalent to nearly EUR 150,000) to a public-law corporation and was placed in pre-trial detention in September 1999. Having been in hospital since August 1999, he was kept under police supervision until 25 November 1999, when he was transferred to Korydallos Prison. The applicant states that he was placed together with three other detainees in a cell measuring 8 sq. m., where the windows were broken and the sanitary conditions were deplorable.   The applicant, who suffered from cardiac insufficiency and diabetes and required a special diet and medication, was transferred to the prison clinic the day after his arrival and was kept there until March 2000. He stated that he was detained together with about ten other people in a room measuring 35 sq. m., which was dirty and infested with cockroaches and mice. He also maintained that he was not provided with meals appropriate to his condition or with the medical treatment he required.   During his detention, the applicant applied several times to be released. All his applications were refused by the Greek courts, which held that there was a risk of his committing further offences and failing to appear in court, or that there was no obstacle to his receiving treatment for his medical condition in the prison clinic.   In March 2000 the applicant had a heart attack and was transferred to an ordinary hospital. When he came out of hospital, the conditions of his detention remained the same. In April 2000 he was again taken to hospital for an operation following a fall; he states that he had to wait several hours before being taken there, that his family were not informed of the incident and that details of his medical condition were not passed on.   In a judgment of 26 June 2000 the applicant was acquitted by the Court of Criminal Appeal. He claimed compensation for the period he had spent in pre-trial detention, but his action was dismissed on the ground that there had been substantial evidence of his guilt.   2.     Procedure and composition of the Court   The application was lodged on 4 October 2000 and declared partly admissible on 29 August 2002.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of 7 judges, composed as follows:   Peer Lorenzen (Danish), President , Christos Rozakis (Greek), Françoise Tulkens (Belgian), Nina Vajić (Croatian), Egil Levits (Latvian), Snejana Botoucharova (Bulgarian), Anatoli Kovler (Russian), judges , and also Søren Nielsen , Deputy Section Registrar .   3.     Summary of the judgment [2]   Complaints   The applicant submitted that, on account of his medical condition, his detention had amounted to treatment in breach of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment). He also complained under Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) that no reasons had been given for the judgment in which he had been refused compensation for the period he had spent in pre-trial detention.   Decision of the Court   Article 3 of the Convention   As to whether the applicant’s state of health had been compatible with his continued detention, the Court observed that his medical condition had indisputably given cause for concern. However, it did not appear from the evidence that the deterioration of his health during his detention was attributable to the prison authorities.   During the nine months and 19 days of his pre-trial detention, the applicant had stayed in an ordinary hospital and in the clinic at Korydallos Prison. According to the medical certificates produced, he had been under regular medical and pharmaceutical supervision during that time and had received a diet appropriate to his condition. There was no evidence to support the applicant’s allegations regarding the overcrowding and the sanitary conditions in the prison clinic.   As regards the conditions of the applicant’s detention in the ordinary cell in Korydallos Prison, the Court was mindful of the fact that he had spent only one day there. Even supposing that those conditions had been inappropriate to his state of health and had resulted from an omission or negligence on the part of the prison authorities, the Court was unable to find a violation of Article 3 on that account because the applicant had been detained in the cell for such a brief period.   Furthermore, the applicant had not produced any evidence in support of his allegations of negligence on the part of the prison authorities during his transfer to the ordinary hospital following his heart attack and fall. In any event, even supposing that the authorities could be held responsible for omissions and delays, the Court noted that the consequences of those failings had not attained the level of severity required by Article   3 of the Convention.   As to whether it had been advisable to keep the applicant in detention, the Court noted that he had held a position requiring a high degree of responsibility and professional conscience and had been charged with a serious offence. The Greek courts had on several occasions refused his applications for release, and the Court noted in that connection that it was not its task to substitute its own assessment for that of the national courts. Furthermore, during the period in issue the Greek authorities had in general complied with their obligation to protect the applicant’s physical integrity, in particular by providing appropriate medical care.   That being so, the Court considered that it had not been established that the conditions of the applicant’s detention had amounted to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention, and held that there had been no violation of that provision.   Article 6 § 1 of the Convention   The Court noted that the Athens Court of Appeal, in refusing to award the applicant any compensation, had merely cited the provisions of Article 533 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and concluded that they applied in his case, without giving any further reasons. Consequently, referring to its relevant case-law, the Court held that there had been a violation of Article 6 § 1.   ***   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.