BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Ürfi Çetinkaya v. Turkey - 19866/04 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 1056 (23 July 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/1056.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 1056 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 165
July 2013
Ürfi Çetinkaya v. Turkey - 19866/04
Judgment 23.7.2013 [Section II] see: (French Text) [2013] ECHR 718
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Inhuman treatment
Positive obligations
Continued detention of paraplegic prisoner: inadmissible
Facts - The applicant suffers from the very severe after-effects of a firearms injury. He is paraplegic and incontinent, with the result that he has to wear a catheter and bag at all times. In November 2003 he was placed in pre-trial detention in connection with an investigation into drug trafficking. In April 2007 he was sentenced to twenty-four years’ imprisonment for heroin trafficking as a member of an organised gang. He also faced charges in a separate set of criminal proceedings. The applicant’s lawyers submitted applications for their client’s release on numerous occasions, arguing that his state of health was incompatible with detention. In 2001, during a previous spell in prison, he had been released on health grounds following a medical report recommending his release for one year.
Law - Article 3: As to whether the applicant was fit to serve his sentence, none of the doctors treating him throughout his detention had considered that he needed to be admitted to hospital or suggested that his state of health was incompatible with detention. Moreover, the applicant had merely asserted that the prison environment was conducive to potentially lethal infections. Furthermore, there was nothing in the applicant’s medical file to indicate that his health had deteriorated while he was in detention. Consequently, his situation did not constitute one of the exceptional cases in which a prisoner’s state of health was wholly incompatible with his continued detention.
As to the quality of the medical care provided to the applicant, he was receiving treatment under medical supervision, administered by specialised staff. He was examined on a regular basis and was treated either within the prison’s medical unit or in the relevant departments of public hospitals. Moreover, he was being treated not just for the problems linked to his disability but also for other health problems. His treatment was dispensed in accordance with medical prescriptions and he was provided with the medical equipment and drugs prescribed for him.
With regard to the suitability of the prison environment in view of the applicant’s state of health, the overall conditions of his detention were not open to criticism. Furthermore, he had been issued with special equipment on the basis of his doctors’ prescriptions. Parallel metal bars had been installed so that he could do his exercises, and his mattress had been replaced. In addition, work had been carried out in his cell to make his daily life in prison easier. The cell door, the toilet door and the door leading to the exercise yard had all been widened to enable the applicant to get through easily. He was thus able to move around and leave his cell unaided. In addition, Western-style toilets had been installed. Lastly, although the applicant was assisted by fellow inmates in performing everyday tasks, he had never to date complained of a lack of assistance or alleged that the assistance he received was inadequate, nor had he requested permission from the prison authorities to have a carer.
Accordingly, the domestic authorities had fulfilled their obligation to protect the prisoner’s physical well-being, in particular by providing him with the appropriate medical care. Furthermore, Turkish law afforded opportunities for the domestic authorities to take action should his condition worsen. In particular, the applicant could apply to be released on health grounds on the basis of sections 16 and 116 of the Law on the enforcement of sentences and preventive measures. In that connection, notwithstanding the wording of section 186 of Regulation no. 2006/10218, the approach of the Istanbul Assize Court consisted in applying the provisions of the aforementioned Law without taking account of that Regulation, so as to extend to all categories of prisoners the possibility of release on health grounds afforded to prisoners whose conviction had become final after being upheld by the Court of Cassation.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
The Court also found a violation of Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 2.
Article 41: EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage; claim in respect of pecuniary damage dismissed.
