Mensonterende omstandigheden in gevangenis: Mensenrechtenhof veroordeelt Kroatië (en)

Press release issued by the Registrar

CHAMBER JUDGMENT - CENBAUER v. CROATIA

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber judgment [1] in the case of Cenbauer v. Croatia (application no. 73786/01).

The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the applicant 3,000 euros for non-pecuniary damage. (The judgment is available only in English.)

• 1. 

  Principal facts

The applicant, Miroslav Cenbauer, is a Croatian national who was born in 1971 and lives in Viljevo (Croatia).

On 15 December 1993 the applicant was found guilty of several criminal offences, including murder, and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment. He served part of his prison sentence in B Wing of Lepoglava State Prison (Kazneni zavod Lepoglava).

The applicant alleged that conditions in B wing were very poor. In particular he complained that his cell was small and had no sanitary facilities or running water. The walls were damp and mouldy and there was no heating. He maintained that his cell was dirty and that the bed sheets were not changed for very long periods of time. At night and at other times when he was confined to his cell, he stated that he had to urinate into a plastic container, because the guards refused to unlock his cell and let him use the toilet. He also claimed that personal hygiene products were provided only every four to five months and that the food was of a poor standard. The prison was overcrowded and in a bad state of repair. In addition, as the prison guards did not wear badges with their number or name, the inmates did not know their identities. He claimed that the prisoners were made to line up as often as ten times a day, and that they had to take outdoor exercise daily in slippers, even when it rained or snowed.

The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) visited the prison in September 1998 and made several recommendations to improve the poor state of the prison and B wing in particular.

In July 2002 a delegation of the Court visited the prison and also reported on the poor conditions it found in B Wing.

• 2. 

  Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 14 January 1997 and declared partly admissible on 5 February 2004.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Christos Rozakis (Greek), President,

Loukis Loucaides (Cypriot),

Françoise Tulkens (Belgian),

Peer Lorenzen (Danish),

Nina Vaji? (Croatian),

Dean Spielmann (Luxemburger),

Sverre Erik Jebens (Norwegian), judges,

and also Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar.

• 3. 

  Summary of the judgment [2]

Complaint

The applicant complained that the conditions in which he was kept at LSP amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. He relied on Article 3.

Decision of the Court

The Court made its assessment relying on the parties’ submissions and the findings of the CPT and the Court’s delegation.

The Court noted that it was undisputed that from 3 January 2001 until 8 April 2003 the applicant was kept in a cell measuring 5.6 m² with another inmate, i.e. he was afforded less than 4 m2 of space, which is the minimum requirement for single inmate in multi-occupancy cells under both domestic law and the CPT standards. It was further undisputed that there was no toilet or running water in the applicant’s cell. The applicant claimed that he had to urinate in plastic containers as he had no access to the common toilet - a problem that had been observed by the CPT and Court delegation. The Court found such a practice humiliating and contributed to the poor hygiene conditions in his cell. The Court also observed that prisoners were confined to their cells for a substantial period of each day. It also took note of the applicant’s complaints concerning mouldy walls, dirtiness of his cell and the overall lack of hygiene for which the Government had provided no convincing explanation.

The Court recognised that the Government had shown willingness to comply with the Court’s previous recommendations and had since renovated the wing but that that did not exculpate them with regards to the events preceding the renovation.

The Court concluded that the applicant had spent about two years and three months in B wing prior to its renovation and that during that time he was exposed to conditions which amounted to degrading treatment contrary to Article 3. There had therefore been a violation of Article 3.

***

The Court’s judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).

Registry of the European Court of Human Rights

F – 67075 Strasbourg Cedex

Press contacts: Roderick Liddell (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 24 92)

Emma Hellyer (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 42 15)

Stéphanie Klein (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 21 54)

Beverley Jacobs (telephone: +00 33 (0)3 90 21 54 21)

Fax: +00 33 (0)3 88 41 27 91

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. Since 1 November 1998 it has sat as a full-time Court composed of an equal number of judges to that of the States party to the Convention. The Court examines the admissibility and merits of applications submitted to it. It sits in Chambers of 7 judges or, in exceptional cases, as a Grand Chamber of 17 judges. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe supervises the execution of the Court’s judgments.

[1] Under Article 43 of the European Convention on Human Rights, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.

[2] This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.