003-3883307-4473320

WyrokETPCz2012-03-20

Analiza orzeczenia

Sekcja wygenerowana przez AI na podstawie treści orzeczenia — nie stanowi cytatu.

Zagadnienie prawne

Czy warunki detencji, charakteryzujące się przeludnieniem, niewystarczającą ilością i jakością jedzenia oraz złymi warunkami higienicznymi, stanowią nieludzkie lub poniżające traktowanie w rozumieniu art. 3 Konwencji?

Ratio decidendi

Trybunał uznał, że warunki detencji skarżącego, charakteryzujące się poważnym przeludnieniem, niewystarczającą ilością i jakością jedzenia oraz złymi warunkami higienicznymi, a także ich negatywny wpływ na zdrowie psychiczne skarżącego, były na tyle poważne, że stanowiły nieludzkie traktowanie, naruszając tym samym art. 3 Konwencji.

Stan faktyczny

Skarżący, Igor Arseniev, obywatel Mołdawii urodzony w 1959 roku, odbywa 20-letni wyrok za morderstwo w więzieniu w Kiszyniowie. Od 2003 roku skarżył się na nieludzkie warunki detencji, w tym na poważne przeludnienie, niewystarczającą ilość i jakość jedzenia oraz złe warunki higieniczne. Twierdził, że te warunki, w których przebywał do 23 godzin dziennie, negatywnie wpłynęły na jego zdrowie psychiczne.

Rozstrzygnięcie

Stwierdza naruszenie art. 3 Konwencji. Zasądza 15 000 EUR z tytułu szkody niemajątkowej oraz 100 EUR na pokrycie kosztów i wydatków.

Pełny tekst orzeczenia

issued by the Registrar of the Court ECHR 113 (2012) 20.03.2012 Judgments concerning the Republic of Moldova and Turkey The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing the following three judgments, none of which are final1. All judgments are in English except Koç and Demir v. Turkey, which is in French. Arseniev v. Republic of Moldova (applications nos. 10614/06 and 10620/06) The applicant, Igor Arseniev, is a Moldovan national who was born in 1959 and is serving a 20-year prison sentence for murder in a prison in Chişinău. Relying on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, he complained about the inhuman conditions of his detention since 2003, notably on account of severe overcrowding, quantity and quality of food and hygiene. He alleged in particular that, detained in those conditions for up to 23 hours per day, his psychiatric health had suffered. Violation of Article 3 Just satisfaction: 15,000 euros (EUR) (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 100 (costs and expenses) Koç and Demir v. Turkey (no. 26793/08) The applicants, Coşkun Koç and Turgay Demir, are Turkish nationals who were born in and 1977 respectively and live in Istanbul. At the relevant time they were respectively a non-commissioned officer and a sergeant in the armed forces. On different dates they were placed in detention as a disciplinary measure. They complained that those sanctions had been imposed by their military hierarchy and not by an independent and impartial tribunal. They relied in particular on Articles 5 (right to liberty and security). Violation of Article 5 § 1 (unlawful detention) Just satisfaction: The applicants did not, in particular, submit their claims for just satisfaction within the time-limit. Pekaslan and Others v. Turkey (no. 4572/06 and 5684/06) The applicants, Nihal Pekaslan, Refika Meltem İspir, Kıvanç Pekaslan, İbrahim Bozay and Leyla Bozay, are Turkish nationals who were born in 1961, 1972, 1985, 1956 and 1962 respectively and live in Malatya (Turkey). The case concerned the applicants’ complaint that the police had used tear gas to disperse a demonstration, in which they had been Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, Chamber judgments are not final. During the three-month period following a judgment’s delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day. Under Article 28 of the Convention, judgments delivered by a Committee are final. Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here: www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution participating in Malatya on 8 March 2005 to celebrate Women’s Day, and had beaten and arrested four of them. They relied on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) and Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association). Violation of Article 3 and Article 11 (in respect of Nihal Pekaslan, Kıvanç Pekaslan, İbrahim Bozay and Leyla Bozay) Just satisfaction: EUR 12,000 (non-pecuniary damage) to each of the four applicants in respect of which a violation has been found, and EUR 2,500 (costs and expenses) jointly to these four applicants. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found on www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s RSS feeds. Press contacts [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08 Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 3 90 21 58 77) Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79) Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09) 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. 2