Search
document

Document text Analytics

NEVARO v. FINLAND

Doc ref: 33599/96 • ECHR ID: 001-4273

Document date: May 20, 1998

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 0

NEVARO v. FINLAND

Doc ref: 33599/96 • ECHR ID: 001-4273

Document date: May 20, 1998

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 33599/96

by Paul NEVARO

against Finland

The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting

in private on 20 May 1998, the following members being present:

MM N. BRATZA, Acting President

E. BUSUTTIL

A. WEITZEL

C.L. ROZAKIS

Mrs J. LIDDY

MM L. LOUCAIDES

B. MARXER

B. CONFORTI

I. BÉKÉS

G. RESS

A. PERENIC

C. BÎRSAN

K. HERNDL

M. VILA AMIGÓ

Mrs M. HION

Mr R. NICOLINI

Mrs M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 19 September 1996

by Paul NEVARO against Finland and registered on 30 October 1996 under

file No. 33599/96;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Finnish citizen born in 1961, was serving a

prison sentence, most recently in the Turku Central Prison.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows.

In 1969 the applicant was diagnosed as being allergic, inter

alia, to fish, pork meat and egg white. His allergy to fish is

allegedly very serious and the smell of fish can kill him in a few

minutes.

The applicant apparently began serving a prison sentence in 1987.

As a protest against the prison authorities' disregard of his allergies

he went on hunger strike five times.

On 5 February 1996 the Parliamentary Ombudsman (eduskunnan

oikeusasiamies, riksdagens justitieombudsman) found no reason to take

action in response to the applicant's petition.

On 26 February 1996 the Prison Administration of the Ministry of

Justice (oikeusministeriön vankeinhoito-osasto, justitieministeriets

fångvårdsavdelning) noted, in response to the applicant's petition,

that various arrangements had been made in view of his food allergies.

For instance, while detained in the Hämeenlinna Prisoners' Hospital he

had been invited to plan his own menu. In the Hämeenlinna County Prison

the nursing staff had given instructions to the kitchen staff in view

of the problems which the regular prison menu had caused the applicant.

The Prison Administration therefore found no reason to criticise the

applicant's prison conditions.

On 25 April 1996 the Prison Administration, again reaching the

same conclusion, noted, inter alia, that after the applicant's transfer

to the Turku County Prison instructions as to his menu had again been

given and these had been followed. As for the risk of an allergy caused

by the smell of fish, the Prison Administration proposed to transfer

the applicant to a ward where he could eat separately from other

prisoners. The applicant did not agree to such a transfer.

On 30 October 1997 the applicant was released on parole.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that he was unable, due to his serious

allergies, to eat various food served to him during his imprisonment.

He believes the prison authorities' failure to take into consideration

this illness amounted to torture violating Article 3 of the Convention.

THE LAW

The applicant complains that the prison authorities failed to

take into consideration his food allergies. He was therefore subjected

to torture contrary to Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention. This

provision reads as follows:

"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or

degrading treatment or punishment." Article 3 (Art. 3) of

the Convention prohibits in absolute terms torture and

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective

of the victim's conduct. In order to fall within the scope

of Article 3 (Art. 3), the ill-treatment must attain a

minimum level of severity, the assessment of which depends

on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration

of the treatment, its physical or mental effects and, in

some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim

etc. In addition to the objective nature of the treatment

and its effects on the person subjected to it, also the

purpose of the authority which resorted to the measure may

be of relevance in determining whether it fulfils the

essential elements of treatment prohibited by Article 3

(Art. 3) (see, e.g., Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment

of 18 January 1978, Series A no. 25, p. 65, para. 162;

Raninen v. Finland judgment of 16 December 1997, Reports

1997-VIII no. 60, para. 55.

In the present case the Commission notes that the prison

authorities took various measures to ensure that the food served to the

applicant would not jeopardise his health. Moreover, there is no

indication that the prison authorities' attitude towards him denoted

contempt or lack of respect for his personality or that the authorities

attempted to humiliate or debase him.

In these circumstances the Commission finds no indication that

the applicant's treatment attained the minimum level of severity

required by Article 3 (Art. 3) of the Convention, whether as torture

or any other treatment proscribed by that provision. There is

accordingly no appearance of a violation of Article 3 (Art. 3).

It follows that the application must be rejected as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2

(Art. 27-2) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.

M.F. BUQUICCHIO N. BRATZA

Secretary Acting President

to the First Chamber of the First Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant