Information Note on the Court’s case-law 216

March 2018

Ebedin Abi v. Turkey - 10839/09

Judgment 13.3.2018 [Section II]

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Meals served to a prisoner incompatible with the diet prescribed by doctors: violation

Facts – The applicant, who was detained in prison from April 2008 to March 2009, suffered from type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. As a result, he was obliged t o follow a diet that was low in calories, beef and saturated fats and suitable for diabetics. However, during his prison stay the meals served to him were based mainly on beef and carbohydrates. He complained to the prison authorities, who refused his requ est to provide meals that were in keeping with the diet prescribed for him by doctors.

The applicant therefore applied to the post-sentencing judge, who granted his request after observing that the prison authorities had simply provided the applicant and t hirty-seven other prisoners who had health problems with the same meals served to prisoners in good health, but with a lower salt and spice content.

However, the prosecutor appealed against that decision to the Assize Court, arguing that the prison authori ties had been unable to prepare and provide a special menu owing to a lack of funds. The Assize Court allowed the appeal.

Law – Article 3: The prison where the applicant had been detained had been unable to provide meals that met the specific dietary requi rements of prisoners with health problems, notwithstanding the relevant medical prescriptions, in view of the amount of the daily allowance per prisoner.

This practice could in no way be justified on economic grounds, given that the law in force at the rel evant time provided for a separate budget for prisoners in poor health. However, neither the prosecutor nor the Assize Court had sought to ascertain whether the prison management had approached the competent authorities with a view to obtaining an increase in the daily allowance.

Furthermore, the applicant could not have been expected to procure his own meals in order to adhere to the diet prescribed for him, as he would have had to bear the costs. The applicant’s state of health should not impose a heavier economic burden on him than that borne by prisoners in good health. A solution entailing costs to the applicant was incompatible with the State’s duty to organise its prison system in such a way as to respect prisoners’ human dignity, notwithstanding the logistical and financial difficulties.

Firstly, then, the authorities had omitted to take the necessary measures to protect the applicant’s health.

Secondly, with regard to the issue of the deterioration in the applicant’s health as a result of his inability to follow the diet prescribed by doctors, the applicant had made use of all the available remedies in order to present his complaints to the nati onal authorities. He had then raised these issues before the Court following the final domestic ruling. The national authorities had therefore failed to respond adequately to the applicant’s repeated requests to be provided with meals that met his requirem ents in view of his state of health.

Bearing in mind that persons in detention were unable to obtain medical treatment whenever they wished and in a hospital of their own choosing, the domestic authorities should have arranged for a specialist to study the standard menu offered by the prison and for the applicant to undergo a medical examination at the same time specifically geared to his complaints. In reality, the authorities had not sought to establish whether the food being provided to the applicant was suitable or whether the failure to adhere to the diet prescribed for him had had an adverse impact on his health.

Hence, these shortcomings meant that the domestic authorities had not taken the requisite measures for the protection of the applicant’s heal th and well-being. They had thus failed to ensure that the applicant’s conditions of detention were adequate and respected his human dignity.

The Court therefore dismissed the Government’s preliminary objection as to the applicability of Article 3 of the C onvention.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41: EUR 5,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

(See also the Factsheet on Prisoners’ health-related rights )

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes