Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 133
August-September 2010
Xiros v. Greece - 1033/07
Judgment 9.9.2010 [Section I]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Failure of domestic courts to give sufficient weight to medical advice that prisoner should be admitted to a specialist clinic: violation
Facts – In 2002 the applicant was seriously injured when a bomb exploded in his hands during preparations for an attack. After being treated in intensive care in hospital, he was remanded in custody. In December 2003 an assize court sentenced him to, among other things, life imprisonment for membership of a terrorist group and participation in its criminal activities. The applicant lodged a number of unsuccessful appeals against his detention, on grounds of health problems related to the various and serious consequences of the explosion.
Law – Article 3: The applicant’s health made it difficult for him to perform everyday tasks. However, at no point during his detention had the doctors attending him suggested that he was unfit to serve his sentence. They had simply recommended a stay of execution of the sentence so that he could receive systematic hospital treatment for the length of time required. Hence, the applicant’s situation did not fall into the category of exceptional cases in which a prisoner’s state of health was wholly incompatible with his continued detention.
The applicant had received appropriate treatment carried out by specialist medical personnel in a medical setting. However, during his detention several specialists had stressed the need for him to be admitted to a specialist eye clinic for systematic and continuous medical supervision. Despite this, the criminal court had rejected the applicant’s application for a stay of execution. Without giving explicit reasons for its choice, it based its decision on the fact that the doctor who attended him regularly had at no point recommended systematic hospital treatment, rather than on the firm opinion to the contrary given by three other doctors. If the domestic court had not wished to endorse the findings of the doctors who recommended systematic hospital treatment, however, it would have been preferable for it to request a further expert medical opinion on that controversial point instead of taking a decision itself on an essentially medical issue which was central to the treatment of the applicant’s health problems. The criminal court had also based its decision on the finding that the applicant’s conditions of detention were virtually equivalent to hospital conditions, although this was not borne out by the evidence in the case file. Lastly, the foregoing considerations had to be seen in the context of the indisputably serious and worsening state of health of the applicant throughout his detention. Thus, the various medical reports advocating that he receive systematic treatment in a specialist clinic should have been considered more closely by the competent judicial authorities. Furthermore, in view of the very poor standard of medical care available from the prison clinic, there were doubts as to the capacity of its permanent staff to deal with an emergency. In the circumstances, the competent authorities had not done what could reasonably be expected of them in order to comply with Article 3.
The adaptation of the conditions of detention to prisoners’ individual needs was of particular relevance in the present case in view of the applicant’s major physical disabilities, which seriously affected his sensory capacities and movement, and the fact that he was serving a life sentence, which meant that, normally speaking, he would be subjected to his current conditions of detention for the rest of his life. The applicant’s overall conditions of detention were not open to criticism and were not contrary to Article 3. Although he was alone in his cell without assistance in performing everyday tasks, he had not to date requested permission from the prison authorities to share his cell with another prisoner or to be assisted by a carer. Thus, the prison authorities could not be held responsible for the fact that he was alone in his cell without assistance in the performance of his daily tasks.
The prison authorities had therefore demonstrated their willingness to provide the applicant with treatment by specialised medical personnel in a medical setting. However, the competent judicial authorities had not given sufficient consideration to the reports issued by the three doctors who had recommended that the applicant be admitted to a specialist clinic for the time required by the nature of his treatment. This factor, combined with the seriousness of his condition and the inadequate standard of treatment provided by the prison clinic, was sufficient basis for finding that he had been subjected to degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3.
Conclusion: violation (by four votes to three).
Article 41: EUR 1,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy