FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 42252/98

by Witold MALUSZCZAK

against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section) sitting on 25 May 1999 as a Chamber composed of

Mr M. Pellonpää , President ,

Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo ,

Mr L. Caflisch ,

Mr J. Makarczyk ,

Mr V. Butkevych ,

Mr J. Hedigan ,

Mrs S. Botoucharova , Judges ,

with Mr V. Berger, Section Registrar ;

Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 2 February 1998 by Witold MALUSZCZAK  against Poland and registered on 20 July 1998 under file no. 42252/98;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Polish national born in 1949. He is currently detained in Strzelce Opolskie prison.

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

On an unspecified date in the 1990s, the applicant was convicted of burglary and sentenced to imprisonment.

Between 17 March 1997 and 3 June 1997, the applicant stayed at the Wrocław Prison Hospital. He was admitted to that facility after he had been diagnosed as suffering from anaemia and from an infection on the inside of his left cheek. The applicant underwent a histopathological examination which showed that the condition of his cheek was not cancerous but rather caused by a self-inflicted injury. In addition, a haematologic examination led to the conclusion that the applicant’s anaemia resulted from a heavy loss of blood caused by self-inflicted injuries as well. The applicant was treated with ferric preparations. When his condition improved, he was discharged from the hospital and transferred to a nearby residential facility of the Wrocław Prison Hospital. However, an examination of the applicant conducted a few days later showed a low level of haemoglobin and a loss of tissue on the inside of his left cheek. He was brought back to the hospital, where he was given a blood transfusion which led to an improvement of his condition. On 3 June 1997, the applicant was discharged from the hospital and transferred to Wołów prison.

On 23 October 1997, the applicant was admitted to the Cracow Detention Centre Hospital, where he was diagnosed as suffering from anaemia, an infection of his left cheek and suspected self-mutilation. During his hospitalisation in that facility, he underwent the following examinations: blood, urine and stool tests, a chest x-ray, an ultrasound of the abdominal cavity, ECG, histopathological , dental and rectal examinations. He was also examined in the maxillofacial surgery ward. Moreover, the applicant was treated with ten different medicines and received a transfusion of red blood cells. Subsequently his condition improved and on 22 December 1997 he was transferred to Nowy Wiśnicz prison.

On 5 January 1998, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Central Prison Administration concerning the allegedly inadequate medical care he had received in the Cracow Detention Centre Hospital. On 29 January 1998, his complaint was transmitted to the District Director of the Prison Service in Cracow . On 31 January 1998, the District Director rejected the complaint as unfounded. He pointed out that during his hospitalisation, the applicant had undergone several examinations and had received pharmaceutical treatment. He further informed the applicant that he agreed with the doctors who had examined him and had found that no other treatment was required by his condition. In addition, the District Director observed that it appeared that the applicant had been mutilating himself by bloodletting and advised him that any further self-mutilation would lead to a deterioration of his state of health.

In a letter of 5 February 1998 addressed to the District Director of the Prison Service, the applicant contested the conclusions stated in the Director’s letter of 31 January 1998. On 16 February 1998, the Director informed that applicant that he saw no reason to change his position and objected to the insults the applicant had used in his letter against prison doctors, in particular to a comparison of the Cracow Detention Centre with a concentration camp.

On 17 February 1998, the Penitentiary Judge dismissed the applicant’s complaint concerning the allegedly inadequate medical treatment received by him at the Cracow Detention Centre.

On 10 April 1998, the Cracow District Prosecutor informed the applicant that she had requested his medical file to be submitted to her in order to investigate his complaint about inadequate medical care provided by the Cracow Detention Centre.

On 13 May 1998, a physician from Wołów prison provided the applicant, upon his request, with a health certificate which described his state of health as “average”.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that he was subjected to inhuman treatment by receiving allegedly inadequate medical care at the Wrocław Prison Hospital and the Cracow Detention Centre Hospital, and that he should have been released from prison on account of his state of health. He does not invoke any Articles of the Convention.

THE LAW

The Court considers that the applicant’s complaint relates to Article 3 of the Convention, which provides:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

The Court begins by recalling that, according to the case-law of the Convention organs, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention (see the Ireland v. the United Kingdom judgment of 18 January 1979, Series A no. 25, p. 65, § 162).  It also recalls that the lack of medical treatment may raise an issue under Article 3 of the Convention. In such cases, the factors to be considered are the seriousness of the applicant's condition, the quality of medical care he receives and the compatibility of his state of health with detention. There is also an obligation on the part of the State to maintain a continuous review of the detention arrangements with a view to ensuring the health and well-being of all prisoners, having due regard to the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment (see Bonnechaux v. Switzerland, Eur. Comm. HR, Report 5.12.1979, D.R. 18, pp. 100 and 148; Lukanov v. Bulgaria, Eur. Comm. HR, Dec. 12.1.1995, D.R. 80-A, pp. 128-130).

Turning to the facts of the present case, it appears, in the light of the documents in the case-file, that the applicant resorted to frequent self-injuries. This circumstance in itself does not discharge the domestic authorities from their responsibility for ensuring a reasonable level of health and well-being of persons in detention. However, the applicant’s complaints about his bad health were followed by hospital treatment. The Court notes that the applicant was admitted, first to the Wrocław Prison Hospital, then to the Cracow Detention Centre Hospital, after he had been diagnosed as suffering from anaemia and an infection of the inside of his left cheek. In both medical facilities, the applicant underwent several medical examinations which pointed to self-injuries as the reason for his recurring problems with a low red blood cell count and an infection of his cheek. Moreover, he received pharmaceutical treatment, together with blood and red blood cell transfusions, which resulted in an improvement of his condition. The health certificate issued by a doctor from Wołów prison after the applicant had been discharged from the aforesaid hospitals described his state of health as “average”; this statement contributes in no way to substantiating the applicant’s claims. In addition, the applicant’s allegations of inadequate medical care provided by the Cracow Detention Centre Hospital were dismissed by the Penitentiary Judge and the District Director of the Prison Service.

In sum, the Court considers that the applicant’s condition was carefully monitored by the prison health services and that he received appropriate medical treatment. It has not been shown that detention was incompatible with his condition. Moreover, no evidence has been adduced to show that the applicant’s condition deteriorated as the prison authorities failed to provide him with adequate medical care. There is no indication of any negligence on the part of the medical services, nor has the applicant adduced any evidence to show that his complaints were wrongfully disregarded by the prison authorities.

In those circumstances, the Court considers that the treatment complained of does not disclose any indication of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .

Vincent Berger Matti Pellonpää Registrar President