FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38750/20
Angelo MURACA
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 28 November 2023 as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Ivana Jelić,
Erik Wennerström, judges,
and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 38750/20) against the Italian Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 25 August 2020 by an Italian national, Mr Angelo Muraca, who was born in 1959 and lives in Melfi (“the applicant”), and who was represented by Mr P. Lepera, a lawyer practising in Isola di Capo Rizzuto;
the decision to give notice of the complaint raised under Article 3 of the Convention to the Italian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr L. D’Ascia, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The application concerns the alleged failure to provide the applicant with adequate medical treatment in prison, in particular the repair of his dental implant.
2. The applicant is currently detained in Melfi Prison.
3. At the beginning of 2019, the applicant started complaining that his dental implant was loosening.
4. Reports drafted by the prison dentist in January and February 2019 stated that, while the applicant’s dental implant was partially detached, this circumstance did not affect his mastication.
5. On 15 March 2019, the applicant requested an authorisation to be examined by a dentist of his choice, which was granted a week later. Following the examination, which took place on 19 April 2019, the dentist declared that he did not have the necessary tools and information to repair the dental implant and suggested that the applicant contact the dental clinic where the implant had been installed.
6. In the meantime, the applicant had asked the prison administration for soft bread and had raised a complaint in this respect to the Potenza Judge for the execution of sentences. Based on the reports of January and February 2019, the request was initially rejected. The applicant appealed.
7. On 9 December 2019 and on 17 and 29 January 2020 the applicant was examined by a dentist in prison. On all occasions, the dentist stated that the applicant’s implant was broken, that he could not properly chew and needed soft bread.
8. Based on this new information, on 8 January 2020 the Potenza Court for the execution of sentences upheld the applicant’s appeal and granted him soft bread.
9. On 7 February 2020, the applicant asked for a temporary transfer to Catanzaro Prison, in order to be closer to the private dental clinic where his implant had been installed, which was located in the neighbouring city of Crotone.
10. The domestic courts, which had initially authorised the applicant’s transfer, subsequently refused it. The reasons were stated in a note, dated 21 March 2020, according to which basic dental care could be provided in Melfi Prison and the applicant could request additional treatment from an external specialist at his own expense.
11. On 24 April 2020, the applicant filed an additional request to the local public health administration, asking whether they could repair his implant. On 29 April, the administration informed him that it could not repair it, either within the prison or in an external facility.
12. On 5 June 2020, the applicant reiterated his request to be transferred to Catanzaro Prison. No information has been provided to the Court on the outcome of this request, nor on the events that occurred in the subsequent two years.
13. According to a certificate issued by the Crotone dental clinic, they examined the applicant on 1 October 2022 at Catanzaro Prison and scheduled further examination and intervention for the repair of the implant. The treatment is ongoing, and the costs are covered by the applicant’s wife. All documents relating to this period refer to Catanzaro Prison, where it appears that the applicant is currently detained.
14. The applicant complained that he was not provided with the necessary medical treatment, in particular in relation to his broken dental implant, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
15. The general principles concerning the obligation to preserve the health and well‑being of prisoners, in particular by the provision of the required medical care, have been summarised in Rooman v. Belgium ([GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 144-48, 31 January 2019).
16. The Court has repeatedly reiterated that medical treatment provided within prison facilities must be at a level comparable to that which the State authorities have committed themselves to provide to the population as a whole (see Rooman, cited above, § 147, and, in the specific context of dental care, V.D. v. Romania, no. 7078/02, § 93, 16 February 2010).
17. Insofar as the applicant complained of the authorities’ failure to repair his dental implant, the Government argued that such treatment fell outside the essential care that the State undertakes to provide to the population as a whole, pursuant to Decree of the President of the Council of Ministers of 12 January 2017. The applicant did not contest that statement, nor argued that he fell within one of the categories of vulnerable people who were entitled to such treatment free of charge, or that he did not dispose of the financial means to pay for it.
18. The Court, therefore, does not consider that the Government were under an obligation to provide the applicant with the repair of his dental implant free of charge (see Györgypál v. Romania, no. 29540/08, § 56, 26 March 2013; Epners-Gefners v. Latvia, no. 37862/02, § 45, 29 May 2012; and, a contrario, V.D. v. Romania, cited above, §§ 93-99).
19. Nevertheless, it remains to be examined whether the applicant was prevented from accessing the required dental care at his own expense or otherwise subjected to treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
20. In this respect, the Court notes that domestic law and, in particular, Article 11, paragraph 12 of Law no. 354 of 26 July 1975, provides for the possibility for detainees to ask for an authorisation to undergo medical examination and treatment at their own expense and by a professional of their choice. The applicant availed himself of that possibility in March 2019 and, shortly after, his request was granted and he was examined by a dentist (see paragraph 5 above). There is no evidence that he made other requests for that purpose or that they were rejected by the prison authorities.
21. The applicant argued that the domestic authorities’ refusal to transfer him to Catanzaro Prison made it impossible for him to obtain the necessary treatment, which could only be provided by the Crotone dental clinic.
22. The Court does not consider that this argument is sufficiently substantiated. There is no evidence in the case-file that the applicant could not obtain treatment from a private dental clinic in Melfi, as the applicant merely contacted the public health administration (see paragraph 11 above).
23. In any event, even assuming that the necessary treatment was unavailable in Melfi, the applicant did not inform the Court of the outcome of the domestic proceedings concerning his transfer request (see paragraph 12 above) and of the subsequent events. It emerges from the documents that, at an unspecified date between 5 June 2020 and 1 October 2022, he was transferred to Catanzaro Prison, where he is currently undergoing dental treatment (see paragraph 13 above). In respect of this period, the applicant did not argue that there were any further delays or shortcoming on the part of domestic authorities.
24. Finally, the Court notes that in Melfi Prison the applicant had access to basic dental care (see paragraphs 4 and 7 above), was given suitable food as soon as the necessity arose (see paragraph 8 above) and he did not argue that he was in pain or that his health deteriorated due to the broken dental implant.
25. In these circumstances, there is insufficient evidence that the temporary unavailability of repairing the dental implant resulted in suffering attracting applicability of Article 3 of the Convention (see Györgypál, cited above, § 56, and Aleksandr Vladimirovich Smirnov v. Ukraine, no. 69250/11, § 52, 13 March 2014; see also, a contrario, Yunzel v. Russia, no. 60627/09, § 47, 13 December 2016, and Drăgan v. Romania, no. 65158/09, §§ 86-94, 2 February 2016).
26. In light of the above considerations, the Court concludes that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 11 January 2024.
Liv Tigerstedt Krzysztof Wojtyczek
Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy