AFFAIRE SZULUK CONTRE LE ROYAUME-UNI

Rezoluția CM/ResDH(2013)88 Szuluk împotriva Regatului Unit Executarea hotărârii Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (Recherche n 36936/05, Hotărârea din 2 iunie 2009, definitivă la 2 septembrie 2009) (adoptată de Comitetul de Miniștri la 7 mai 2013 în cadrul celei de-a 1170-a ședințe a Delegaților miniștrilor) Comitetul miniștrilor, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din Convenția pentru apărarea drepturilor omului și a libertăților fundamentale, care prevede ca Comitetul să supravegheze executarea hotărârilor definitive ale Curții Europene a Drepturilor Omului (denumite în continuare "convenția" și "Curtea"), Având în vedere hotărârea definitivă care a fost transmisă de Curte Comitetului în cauza de mai sus și încălcarea constatată reamintind obligația statului pârât, în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (1) (1) din Convenție, să se conformeze hotărârilor definitive în litigiile la care este parte și că această obligație implică, pe lângă plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte, adoptarea de către autoritățile din statul membru în cauză, dacă este necesar de măsuri individuale pentru a pune capăt încălcărilor constatate și pentru a elimina consecințele acestora, în măsura posibilului de către Restitutio in integrum ; și măsuri generale de prevenire a unor încălcări similare ; Am invitat guvernul de la statul pârât să informeze Comitetul cu privire la măsurile luate pentru a se conforma obligațiilor După examinarea bilanțului de acțiune furnizat de guvern care indică măsurile adoptate în vederea executării hotărârii judecătorești, inclusiv informațiile furnizate în ceea ce privește plata satisfacției echitabile acordate de Curte (a se vedea documentul DH-DD(2013) 357E), asigurându-se că au fost adoptate toate măsurile prevăzute la art. 46 alineatul (1), DECLARĂ că quelíl și-a îndeplinit atribuțiile în temeiul articolului 46 alineatul (2) din convenție în această cauză și DECIDE d . Acțiune report Szuluk v United Kingdom (Application No. 36/05; final judgment on 2 September 2009) Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 25 March 2013 (numai engleză) Case description The applicant complained that the monitoring of a pierter. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 8. The Court held: In light of the severity of the applicicants medical condition, uninhibited corelence with a medicyl specialist in the context of a închisoare suffering from a life-threatening condition should be afforded no less protection than the settlence between a închisoare and an MP. It conclused that maith monitoring of the applicant The just satisfaction award was paid in November 2009; the evidence of this has previously been implored. Individual measures: No further individual measures are required ciocause Mr. Szuluk has been released from închisoare. General Measures General Measures: A Închisoarea Service Instruction on închisoare communication includ amenzi policy to comply with this judgment. This can seen at atten www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-49-2011-închisoare-comms-service.doc . Paragraph 14.15 is of particular responsition and sets out that: In respect of England and Wales, a statutory Instrument was laid before Parliament on 25 November 2009 and came into force on 1 January 2010 (www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3082 .) The SI amends, amongst other things, Rule 20 of the Închisoarea Rules 1999 and Rule 27 of the Young Offender Institution Rules 2000 to provide that a închisoare may se potrivește confidentially with a registered medical pracitioner who has treated the închisoare for a life treatening condition, and such corespondence may not be opened, read or stoped unless the Închisoarea Governor has http://www.sps.gov.uk/Publication/Publication-3598.aspx ) in Rule 58 of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 which came into force on 1 November 2011 for the circumstances in which corespondence with medical pracititers may be opened or read, which is designed to be conspir with the decizie in this case. The Northern Ireland Închisoarea Service has giveneffect to the Szuluk ruling by provening an Instruction to Governors on 17 August 2012, which has amended the Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Închisoarea Service. The revised Standing Order is agreed. In due cursa it it will be available at: http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/ni-prison-service.htm (website currently being redesigned). Toate staff-ul în NIPS trebuie să fie completat cu Standing Orders. It should be noted that there are special process for dealing with decerners who may develop a life-threatening ilness whilst in custody and that well developed medical-in-confidence procedures are in loc. Dacă o închisoare a fost folosită pentru a developa o viață-threatening allness whilst in inchisoare he/she would have no need to second with a consultant as he/she would receive care on-site from the healthcare professionals. There would be a duty of care on behalf of the inchisoare healthcare team to make contact with the icreers healthcare provider on the outside if implement and any such contacts would be covered by the medical in-confidences process already in place. Finally, it is also intented to amend the NI Închisoarea Rules in due cursa. Publication: The judgment was publicised in The Times Law Report on 17 June 2009 (Application No 36936/05) and in Butterworth Electroluxs Medico-Legal Reports at 108 BMLR 190 (2009). The judgment is also available on online databases inclusivding English databases Lexisnexis, Lawtel and Westlaw. Dissemination: The judgment has been diseminated to all UK închisoare jurdictions (inclusiv Scotland and Northern Ireland) astfel încât acestea să poată amend their policies and Rules, as above. State of execution of judgment: The government considers that all necessary steps have been taken to implement the judgment, and that the case should be closed. EXTRACT FROM NORTHERN IRELAND PRIZON SERVION STANDING ORDERS 5.3.5 LEGAL AND PRIVILEGED CORRESPONDENCE Corespondență between a închisoare and his or her legal adviver, a Registered General Prastitioner or any of the statutory bodies listed below is privileged and shall be treated as privatate and confidential provided the envelope is clearly marked 5.3.5 Privilegileged Corespondență Staff and pușcăriers should be aware that privileged corespondence with a Registered General Practitioner/Specialist/Consultant may only be entered into if the închisoare was already coresponding with them in relation to a life-threatening illness primar to their committal to inchisoare Where a governor believes that any envelope marked either Where an envelope is opened in acordance with this order, the settlence shall be withheld from the închisoare on the direction of the Director of Operational Support at NIPS HQ or his authorised representative.

Résolution CM/ResDH(2013)88

Szuluk contre Royaume-Uni

Exécution de l’arrêt de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme

(Requête n

o

36936/05, arrêt du 2 juin 2009, définitif le 2 septembre 2009)

(adoptée par le Comité des Ministres le 7 mai 2013,

lors de la 1170e réunion des Délégués des Ministres)

Le Comité des Ministres, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, qui prévoit que le Comité surveille l’exécution des arrêts définitifs de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (ci-après nommées «

la Convention

» et «

la Cour

»),

Vu l’arrêt définitif qui a été transmis par la Cour au Comité dans l’affaire ci-dessus et la violation constatée

;

Rappelant l’obligation de l’Etat défendeur, en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe

1, de la Convention, de se conformer aux arrêts définitifs dans les litiges auxquels il est partie et que cette obligation implique, outre le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour, l’adoption par les autorités de l’Etat défendeur, si nécessaire

:

-

de mesures individuelles pour mettre fin aux violations constatées et en effacer les conséquences, dans la mesure du possible par

restitutio in integrum

; et

-

de mesures générales permettant de prévenir des violations semblables ;

Ayant invité le gouvernement de l’Etat défendeur à informer le Comité des mesures prises pour se conformer à l’obligation susmentionnée

;

Ayant examiné le bilan d’action fourni par le gouvernement indiquant les mesures adoptées afin d’exécuter l’arrêt y compris les informations fournies en ce qui concerne le paiement de la satisfaction équitable octroyée par la Cour (voir document DH-DD(2013)357E)

;

S’étant assuré que toutes les mesures requises par l’article 46, paragraphe 1, ont été adoptées,

DECLARE qu’il a rempli ses fonctions en vertu de l’article 46, paragraphe 2, de la Convention dans cette affaire et

DECIDE d’en clore l’examen.

Action report

Szuluk v United Kingdom (Application No 36936/05; final judgment on 2 September 2009)

Information submitted by the United Kingdom Government on 25 March 2013

(Anglais seulement)

Case description

-

The applicant complained that the monitoring of a prisoner’s medical correspondence with his doctor was a breach of the Article 8 ECHR right to respect for correspondence. The Court found there had been a violation of Article 8. The Court held:

-

In light of the severity of the applicant’s medical condition, uninhibited correspondence with a medical specialist in the context of a prisoner suffering from a life-threatening condition should be afforded no less protection than the correspondence between a prisoner and an MP.

-

It concluded that “the monitoring of the applicant’s medical correspondence...did not strike a fair balance with his right to respect for his correspondence in the circumstances”.

-

The Court awarded the applicant 1 000 euros in non-pecuniary damages plus 6 000 euros costs.

Individual measures

2.

Just satisfaction:

-

The just satisfaction award was paid in November 2009; the evidence of this has previously been supplied.

Individual measures:

-

No further individual measures are required because Mr Szuluk has been released from prison.

General measures

4.

General measures:

-

A Prison Service Instruction on prisoner communications includes amended policy to comply with this judgment. This can be seen at

www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/offenders/psipso/psi-49-2011-prisoner-comms-services.doc

. Paragraph 14.15 is of particular relevance and sets out that: “Correspondence between a prisoner and a registered medical practitioner must be handled in confidence but only to the extent that the registered medical practitioner is acting in a professional capacity and the correspondence directly relates to the treatment of the prisoner”.

-

In respect of England and Wales, a Statutory Instrument was laid before Parliament on 25

November 2009 and came into force on 1 January 2010 (

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/3082

.) The SI amends, amongst other things, Rule 20 of the Prison Rules 1999 and Rule 27 of the

Young Offender Institution Rules 2000

to provide that a prisoner may correspond confidentially with a registered medical practitioner who has treated the prisoner for a life threatening condition, and such correspondence may not be opened, read or stopped unless the Prison Governor has “reasonable cause” to believe that the contents do not relate to the treatment of that condition.

-

The Scottish Prison Service has made provision (see

http://www.sps.gov.uk/Publications/Publication-3598.aspx

) in Rule 58 of the Prisons and Young Offenders Institutions (Scotland) Rules 2011 which came into force on 1 November 2011 for the circumstances in which correspondence with medical practitioners may be opened or read, which is designed to be consistent with the decision in this case.

-

The Northern Ireland Prison Service has given effect to the Szuluk ruling by issuing an Instruction to Governors on 17 August 2012, which has amended the Standing Orders of the Northern Ireland Prison Service. The revised Standing Order is attached. In due course it will be available at:

http://www.dojni.gov.uk/index/ni-prison-service.htm

(website currently being redesigned). All staff in the NIPS must comply with the Standing Orders. It should be noted that there are specific procedures for dealing with prisoners who may develop a life-threatening illness whilst in custody and that well developed medical-in-confidence procedures are in place. If a prisoner were to develop a life-threatening illness whilst in prison he/she would have no need to correspond with a consultant as he/she would receive care on-site from the healthcare professionals. There would be a duty of care on behalf of the prison healthcare team to make contact with the prisoner’s healthcare provider on the outside if applicable and any such contacts would be covered by the medical in-confidence procedures

already in place.

Finally, it is also intended to amend the NI Prison Rules in due course.

Publication:

-

The judgment was publicised in The Times

Law Report on 17 June 2009 (Application No 36936/05) and in Butterworth’s Medico-Legal Reports at 108 BMLR 190 (2009). The judgment is also available on online legal databases including English databases Lexisnexis, Lawtel and Westlaw.

6.

Dissemination:

-

The judgment has been disseminated to all UK prison jurisdictions (including Scotland and Northern Ireland) so that they can amend their policies and Rules, as above.

7.

State of execution of judgment:

-

The government considers that all necessary steps have been taken to implement the judgment, and that the case should be closed.

EXTRACT FROM NORTHERN IRELAND PRISON SERVICE STANDING ORDERS

5.3.5

LEGAL AND PRIVILEGED CORRESPONDENCE

Correspondence between a prisoner and his or her legal adviser, a Registered General Practitioner or any of the statutory bodies listed below is privileged and shall be treated as private and confidential provided the envelope is clearly marked ‘S.O. 5.3.5 Legal Correspondence’ where it contains correspondence between a prisoner and a legal adviser and ‘S.O. 5.3.5 Privileged Correspondence’ where it contains correspondence between a prisoner, their Registered General Practitioner/Specialist/Consultant and any of the statutory bodies.

The statutory bodies to which this order applies are:

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission;

Equality Commission for Northern Ireland;

Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland;

The Prisoner Ombudsman for Northern Ireland.

(

Staff and prisoners should be aware that privileged correspondence with a Registered General Practitioner/Specialist/Consultant may only be entered into if the prisoner was already corresponding with them in relation to a life-threatening illness prior to their committal to prison

– see IG12/12)

Where a governor believes that any envelope marked either ‘Legal Correspondence’ or ‘Privileged Correspondence’ contains material to which legal or medical privilege does not attach or which does not relate to the function of one of the statutory bodies, he may direct that it be opened, in the presence of the prisoner where reasonably practicable and examined by staff to the extent necessary to ascertain whether it should properly be afforded confidentiality.

Where an envelope is opened in accordance with this order, the correspondence shall be withheld from the prisoner only on the direction of the Director of Operational Support at NIPS HQ or his authorised representative.