British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
Aristotel SZEMKOVICS v Romania - 27117/08 [2011] ECHR 2316 (6 December 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/2316.html
Cite as:
[2011] ECHR 2316
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
THIRD
SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
27117/08
by Aristotel SZEMKOVICS
against
Romania
The
European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting
on 6 December 2011 as a Chamber
composed of:
Josep
Casadevall, President,
Alvina
Gyulumyan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Luis
López Guerra,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
regard to the above application lodged on 21 May 2008,
Having
regard to the decision taken by the President of the Chamber to
appoint Mr Mihai Poalelungi to sit as ad
hoc judge
(Article 26 § 4 of the Convention and Rule 29 § 1 of the
Rules of Court), as Mr Corneliu Bîrsan, the judge elected in
respect of Romania, had withdrawn from the case (Rule 28 of the
Rules of Court),
Having
deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The
applicant, Mr Aristotel Szemkovics, is a Romanian and
Hungarian national who was born in 1958 and is currently detained in
Giurgiu Prison.
A. The circumstances of the case
The
facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant,
may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant’s conviction
The
applicant alleged that he was persecuted during the Ceausescu regime,
that he was taken into custody and beaten on a number of occasions by
secret police (Securitatea) officers and that he was ordered
to undergo a psychiatric examination. He alleged that after 1989 he
was invited to participate in an armed plot against the Government.
In
1992 he fled to Hungary to a refugee camp. He returned to Romania on
an unspecified date.
On
5 November 1999 the Bucharest County Court convicted the applicant of
murder and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.
On
an unknown date the applicant lodged an application with the Romanian
authorities seeking access to his psychiatric medical file. The
applicant alleged that his application was declared null and void and
that the prison authorities refused to provide him with a copy of the
documents.
2. Detention conditions and alleged interference with
the applicant’s right of petition in Aiud Prison
The
applicant was transferred some time around April 2009 from Rahova
Prison to Aiud Prison. He alleged that after being transferred he was
constantly refused envelopes and stamps for his correspondence with
the Court, the prison authorities informing him that he was not
entitled to envelopes and stamps and that they had no duty to provide
them.
The
applicant also alleged that he suffers from chronic hepatitis and
chronic constipation. He alleged that the prison doctors refused to
provide him with the medication that helps alleviate his
constipation. He stated that he feels humiliated by this refusal.
3. Detention conditions and alleged interference with
the applicant’s right of petition in Giurgiu Prison
On
6 April 2010 the applicant was transferred to Giurgiu Prison. He
alleged that the authorities again refused to provide him with
envelopes and stamps for his correspondence with the Court.
He
also alleged that on one occasion it was only when he threatened to
stop eating that he received an envelope and a stamp. As appears from
the case file, the applicant in fact received three stamps from
various religious groups. The applicant attached a ticket dated 3
March 2010 which confirmed the registration of his request for
envelopes and stamps to be provided by the prison authorities –
which request, he alleged, remained unanswered.
It
appears that in 2010 he went on hunger strike on two occasions –
each time for a duration of one week – in order to receive
treatment for his chronic constipation.
In
the summer of 2010 the applicant requested a hearing with a
post-sentencing judge in order to complain of the lack of any medical
treatment for his chronic constipation since he had been transferred
to Giurgiu Prison. Following communications between the judge and the
prison authorities in the summer of 2010, the applicant received the
treatment. However, he was subsequently again refused the treatment.
The
applicant alleged that he lodged numerous complaints with the prison
authorities concerning the conditions of his detention. However, he
alleged that his complaints were repeatedly not even registered and
that he was not taken before a post-sentencing judge for a hearing.
Lastly,
the applicant alleged that he was repeatedly refused copies of his
medical file on the grounds that the prison lacked the funds
necessary to this end.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
Law
no. 275/2006 on the execution of sentences reads, insofar as
relevant, as follows:
Article 3
“The execution of sentences should ensure respect
for human dignity.”
Article 46 – Measures seeking to ensure a
detained person’s right to petition
“1. In order to ensure a detained
person’s right to petition and to correspondence, the prison
governor is obliged to take the measures necessary to ensure the
convicted person [can access] all materials and to install letter
boxes inside the prison.”
Article 50 – The right to medical assistance
“1. The right of detained persons to
medical assistance is guaranteed.
2. Medical assistance is provided free of
charge, whenever necessary or upon request, by qualified personnel,
as provided by law.
3. Detained persons benefit from free medical
assistance and medicine.”
COMPLAINTS
The
applicant complained in substance under Article
3 of the Convention of a lack of medical treatment in Giurgiu and
Aiud Prisons.
The
applicant complained in substance under Article
34 of the Convention about interference with his right to individual
petition with respect to the prison authorities’ refusal to
provide him with envelopes, stamps and a copy of his medical records.
The
applicant complained in substance under Article
8 of the Convention of a lack of access to his psychiatric medical
file.
THE LAW
A. Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention
The applicant complained of a
lack of proper medical assistance during his detention. He relied in
substance on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to
inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
The
Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file,
determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is
therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the
Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of
the application to the respondent Government.
B. Complaint under Article 34 of the Convention
The
applicant complained of interference with his right to individual
petition. He relied in substance on Article 34 of the Convention,
which reads as follows:
“The Court may receive applications from any
person, non-governmental organisation or group of individuals
claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High
Contracting Parties of the rights set forth in the Convention or the
Protocols thereto. The High Contracting Parties undertake not to
hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right.”
The
Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file,
determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is
therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the
Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of
the application to the respondent Government.
C. Complaint under Article 8 of the Convention
The applicant complained in substance under Article 8
of a lack of access to his psychiatric medical records created during
the Ceausescu regime. This provision reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to respect
for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public
authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in
accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in
the interests of national security, public safety or the economic
well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime,
for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the
rights and freedoms of others.”
The Court notes that the applicant claims to have
initiated administrative proceedings seeking access to his
psychiatric medical file. However, he failed to provide detailed
information in support of his allegations concerning the development
or the outcome of the proceedings at issue, making it impossible for
the Court to assess the complaint properly.
It
follows that this part of the application is inadmissible for lack of
substantiation and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4
of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to adjourn
the examination of the applicant’s
complaints concerning Articles 3 and 34 of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of
the application inadmissible.
Marialena
Tsirli Josep Casadevall
Deputy
Registrar President
