![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |||||||||
European Court of Human Rights |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> GOGINASHVILI v. GEORGIA - 47729/08 [2011] ECHR 1510 (4 October 2011) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1510.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1510 |
[New search] [Contents list] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
CASE OF GOGINASHVILI v. GEORGIA
(Application no. 47729/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 October 2011
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Goginashvili v. Georgia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Josep
Casadevall,
President,
Corneliu
Bîrsan,
Egbert
Myjer,
Ján
Šikuta,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
judges,
and Marialena Tsirli,
Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 13 September 2011,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. The criminal proceedings against the applicant
B. The applicant’s state of health and the proceedings before the Court
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND INTERNATIONAL DOCUMENTS
A. The Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”), as it stood at the material time
B. The General Administrative Code and the Civil Code, as they stood at the material time
C. The Code of Administrative Procedure, as it stood at the material time
D. The Prison Code, as it stands since its entry into force on 1 October 2010
Article 24 - Right to Health Care
“1. A [detained] accused/convict shall have the right to use all the necessary medical facilities. All types of medical treatment which are permitted in the given establishment should be made accessible to [a detainee]. If so requested, [a detainee] should be entitled to obtain at his or her own expense more expensive or similar medication or other type of medical treatment than those procured by the relevant establishment. In the event of a reasoned request, and with the permission of the Head of the [Prison] Department, [a detainee] may invite a civilian doctor at his or her own expense.
2. Immediately upon entering an establishment, a [detainee] must undergo a medical examination. The relevant record shall be drawn up and added to the [detainee’s] personal medical file.”
E. Report to the Georgian Government on the visit to Georgia carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 5 to 15 February 2010 (CPT/Inf (2010) 27)
“99. The Medical establishment for prisoners in Tbilisi (Gldani), located within the perimeter of the Gldani penitentiary complex, represents a great improvement on the Central Prison Hospital visited by the CPT in 2001 and 2004. The delegation gained a globally positive impression of this new facility, inaugurated at the end of 2008 but in fact functioning fully only for a few months. With an official capacity of 258 beds, the establishment was accommodating 231 sick prisoners at the time of the visit. All the patients were men.
There were five wards: surgery, psychiatry, infectious diseases, internal medicine and intensive care/reanimation. Further, there was an admissions unit, an X-ray unit, a dental office, a laboratory, rooms for endoscopy and physiotherapy, and a pharmacy.
100. The diagnostic equipment was modern and functional, and the establishment offered an adequate range of hospital treatments for prisoners. It was also possible to transfer sick prisoners to other hospital facilities for diagnostic treatments which were not available at the Medical establishment (an average of 5 transfers per week).
101. Clinical staff were sufficient in numbers (a total of 129 doctors and nurses) and appropriately trained. Further, a number of outside medical consultants (neuropsychiatrist, neurosurgeon, etc.) held periodic surgeries. ...
103. As regards material conditions in the patients’ rooms, there was adequate access to natural light, artificial lighting and ventilation, and the rooms were in a good state of repair and cleanliness. That said, the rooms were rather cramped (e.g. six prisoners in a room measuring some 20 m², including a sanitary annexe).”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
A. Admissibility
1. The parties’ submissions
2. The Court’s assessment
(a) Ability to sue the prison authority under the General Administrative Code and the Civil Code
(b) Ability to secure a court injunction under the Code of Administrative Procedure
(c) Conclusions
B. Merits
1. The Government’s submissions
2. The applicant’s submissions
3. The Court’s assessment
(a) General principles
(b) Application of these principles to the present case
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Done in English, and notified in writing on 4 October 2011, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Marialena Tsirli Josep
Casadevall
Deputy Registrar President