AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application No. 33599/96
by Paul NEVARO
against Finland
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 20 May 1998, the following members being present:
MM N. BRATZA, Acting President
E. BUSUTTIL
A. WEITZEL
C.L. ROZAKIS
Mrs J. LIDDY
MM L. LOUCAIDES
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
I. BÉKÉS
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
K. HERNDL
M. VILA AMIGÓ
Mrs M. HION
Mr R. NICOLINI
Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 19 September 1996
by Paul NEVARO against Finland and registered on 30 October 1996 under
file No. 33599/96;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, a Finnish citizen born in 1961, was serving a
prison sentence, most recently in the Turku Central Prison.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be
summarised as follows.
In 1969 the applicant was diagnosed as being allergic, inter
alia, to fish, pork meat and egg white. His allergy to fish is
allegedly very serious and the smell of fish can kill him in a few
minutes.
The applicant apparently began serving a prison sentence in 1987.
As a protest against the prison authorities' disregard of his allergies
he went on hunger strike five times.
On 5 February 1996 the Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan
oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman) found no reason to take
action in response to the applicant's petition.
On 26 February 1996 the Prison Administration of the Ministry of
Justice (oikeusministeriön vankeinhoito-osasto, justitieministeriets
fångvårdsavdelning) noted, in response to the applicant's petition,
that various arrangements had been made in view of his food allergies.
For instance, while detained in the Hämeenlinna Prisoners' Hospital he
had been invited to plan his own menu. In the Hämeenlinna County Prison
the nursing staff had given instructions to the kitchen staff in view
of the problems which the regular prison menu had caused the applicant.
The Prison Administration therefore found no reason to criticise the
applicant's prison conditions.
On 25 April 1996 the Prison Administration, again reaching the
same conclusion, noted, inter alia, that after the applicant's transfer
to the Turku County Prison instructions as to his menu had again been
given and these had been followed. As for the risk of an allergy caused
by the smell of fish, the Prison Administration proposed to transfer
the applicant to a ward where he could eat separately from other
prisoners. The applicant did not agree to such a transfer.
On 30 October 1997 the applicant was released on parole.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains that he was unable, due to his serious
allergies, to eat various food served to him during his imprisonment.
He believes the prison authorities' failure to take into consideration
this illness amounted to torture violating Article 3 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The applicant complains that the prison authorities failed to
take into consideration his food allergies. He was therefore subjected
to torture contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. This
provision reads as follows:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or
degrading treatment or punishment." Article 3 (Art. 3) of
the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective
of the victim's conduct. In order to fall within the scope
of Article 3 (Art. 3), the ill-treatment must attain a
minimum level of severity, the assessment of which depends
on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration
of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in
some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim
etc. In addition to the objective nature of the treatment
and its effects on the person subjected to it, also the
purpose of the authority which resorted to the measure may
be of relevance in determining whether it fulfils the
essential elements of treatment prohibited by Article 3
(Art. 3) (see, e.g., Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment
of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, para. 162;
Raninen v. Finland judgment of 16 December 1997, Reports
1997-VIII no. 60, para. 55.
In the present case the Commission notes that the prison
authorities took various measures to ensure that the food served to the
applicant would not jeopardise his health. Moreover, there is no
indication that the prison authorities' attitude towards him denoted
contempt or lack of respect for his personality or that the authorities
attempted to humiliate or debase him.
In these circumstances the Commission finds no indication that
the applicant's treatment attained the minimum level of severity
required by Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, whether as torture
or any other treatment proscribed by that provision. There is
accordingly no appearance of a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3).
It follows that the application must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2
(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.
M.F. BUQUICCHIO N. BRATZA
Secretary Acting President
to the First Chamber of the First Chamber
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy