Information Note on the Court’s case-law 192

January 2016

Cătălin Eugen Micu v. Romania - 55104/13

Judgment 5.1.2016 [Section IV]

Article 3

Degrading treatment

Positive obligations

Unsubstantiated allegations that prisoner had contracted Hepatitis C in prison and not received proper medical care: no violation

Facts – The applicant, who is in prison, alleged, inter alia , that he had contracted hepatitis C in prison and had received no adequate medical treatment for that condition.

Law – Article 3 ( substantive head )

(a) As regards the alleged contamination with the hepatitis C virus in prison – The Court held that the propagation of transmissible diseases should be a major public health concern, particularly in prisons. Consequently, it stated that prisoners should have the benefit, with their consent and within a reasonable time after arriving in prison, of free tests for detecting the various types of hepatitis and HIV/AIDS. Had such a facility been available in the present case, it would have made it easier to assess the applicant’s allegations in terms of ascertaining whether or not he had contracted the disease in prison. However, since the applicant had not been offered such tests, the Court had to consider the allegations that he had contracted hepatitis C in prison in the light of the evidence submitted by the applicant. The Court took the view that those allegations had not been supported by sufficient evidence. Furthermore, there were no pointers to the time or the manner of the applicant’s contamination with hepatitis C. Therefore, even though the disease had been detected while the applicant was under the State’s responsibility, the Court could not deduce from that fact that the pathology had been the result of a failure on the part of the State to honour its positive obligations.

(b) As regards the medical care and treatment provided in prison for hepatitis C – Having been diagnosed with hepatitis C, the applicant had been treated by a qualified doctor, who had decided, on the basis of four successive medical examinations carried out on the applicant while in hospital, that it was unnecessary to conduct any additional examinations, and had prescribed medical treatment to be administered when needed. However, the applicant had not consistently co-operated with the authorities as regards the administration of the requisite medical treatment, refusing the medical examinations recommended by the medical staff.

As regards the medical treatment, the applicant was prescribed therapy to be administered “when needed”, and he was provided with appropriate medication. Even though the supply of that medication had been somewhat delayed during one of his stays in hospital, the applicant had not been deprived of medicines for any lengthy period, and he did not submit to the Court that his state of health had deteriorated during that period because of the lack of treatment. The authorities had therefore fulfilled their obligation to provide the applicant with medical treatment suited to his condition.

Accordingly, there had been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention vis-à-vis the applicant, owing to contamination with hepatitis C or any shortcomings in his medical care in prison.

Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).

The Court also unanimously found a violation of the substantive head of Article 3 owing to the prison overcrowding suffered by the applicant in prison.

Article 41: 4,350 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

© 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