DUTY OF CARE INCUMBENT ON THE CONTRACTING STATES WITH REGARD TO THE DETENTION OF ILL AND HANDICAPPED PERSONS UNDER THE CASE-LAW OF THE EUROPEAN COURT ON HUMAN RIGHTS

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi, hasta veya engelli olan hükümlü ve tutukluların içinde bulundukları tutukluluk koşullarını, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Sözleşmesinin 3. maddesi kapsamında incelemekte ve bu incelemesinde de üye devletlerin bu durumda olan mahkûm ve tutuklulara karşı özen yükümlülüğü altında olduğu prensibinden hareket etmektedir. İşbu makale, Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi içtihadının, üye devletlerin özen yükümünün kapsamına dair genel bir incelemesi olma amacını taşımaktadır. Mahkeme içtihadı, hasta veya engelli tutukluların salıverilmesini şart koşmamakla beraber, tutukluluk koşullarının bu kişilere göre makul ölçülerde adapte edilmesini ve bu kişilere cezaevinde de uygun tıbbi yardım sağlanması gerektiğini belirtmektedir.

Avrupa İnsan Hakları Mahkemesi Kararlarında Üye Devletlerin Hasta ve Engelli Olan Hükümlü ve Tutuklulara Karşı Özen Yükümlülüğü

The European Court of Human Rights examines the condition of detention of ill and handicapped persons under Article 3 of the Convention. This examination is mainly based on the principle that the Contracting States owe a duty of care against these persons. This article aims to provide for a general overview of the case-law of the ECHR on detention cases involving these categories of persons. The case-law does not require from the Contracting States release of the ill or handicapped detainees. However detention conditions should be reasonably adapted to ill and handicapped persons and the appropriate medical care should be provided to them during their detention.

___

Case Law:

Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000-IV.

Raninen v. Finland, 16 December 1997, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997VIII

Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, ECHR 2002VI.

Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no. 48787/99, ECHR 2004VII Dougoz v. Greece, no. 40907/98, ECHR 2001II

M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece [GC], no.30696/09, , ECHR 2011

El-Masri v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia [GC], no. 39630/09, , ECHR 2012).

Tyrer v. the United Kingdom, 25 April 1978, Series A no. 26; ErdoğanYağız v. Turkey, no.27473/02, 6 March 2007

Kummer v. the Czech Republic, no.32133/11, 25 July 2013). V. v. the United Kingdom [GC], no.24888/94, ECHR 1999-IX;

Ilaşcu and Others v. Moldova and Russia [GC], no.48787/99, ECHR 2004VII; Lorsé and Others v. the Netherlands, no. 52750/99, 4 February 2003).

Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.30210/96, ECHR 2000XI;

Popov v. Russia, no.26853/04, 13 July 2006).

Alver v. Estonia, no. 64812/01, 8 November 2005).

Farbtuhs v. Latvia, no.4672/02, 2 December 2004,

Matencio v. France, no.58749/00, 15 January 2004,

Sakkopoulos v. Greece, no.61828/00, 15 January 2004).

Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no.64666/01, ECHR 2001VI;

Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no.63716/00, ECHR 2001VI; Priebke v. Italy (dec.), no.48799/99, 5 April 2001).

Rivière v. France, no.33834/03, 11 July 2006).

Tekin Yıldız v. Turkey, no. 22913/04, 10 November 2005

SławomirMusiałv. Poland, no. 28300/06, 20 January 2009

Pilčić v. Croatia, no. 33138/06, 17 January 2008

Sarban v. Moldova, no. 3456/05, 4 October 2005; Harris, OBoyle and Warbrick, at 97

Slyusarev v. Russia, no. 60333/00, 20 April 2010

Dybeku v. Albania, no. 41153/06, 18 December 2007

Price v. the United Kingdom, no. 33394/96, ECHR 2001-VII

Kaprykowski v. Poland, no. 23052/05, 3 February 2009

Ghavtadze v. Georgia, no. 23204/07, 3 March 2009

Cyprus v. Turkey [GC], no. 25781/94, ECHR 2001IV

Khudobin v. Russia, no. 59696/00, ECHR 2006XII (extracts) Makharadze and Sikharulidze v. Georgia, no. 35254/07, 22 November 2011

McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom,no. 50390/99, ECHR 2003V Fedosejevs v. Latvia (dec.), no. 37546/06, 19 November 2013

Aerts v. Belgium, 30 July 1998, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1998V; Herczegfalvy v. Austria, 24 September 1992, Series A no. 244

Jalloh v. Germany [GC], no. 54810/00, ECHR 2006IX; Nevmerzhitsky v. Ukraine, no. 54825/00, § 94, ECHR 2005-II.

Naumenko v. Ukraine, no. 42023/98, 10 February 2004

Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, 26 July 2001

X v. the Netherlands, no. 8239/78, Commission decision of 4 December 1978, Decisions and Reports (DR) 16, pp. 187-89;

Schmidt v. Germany (dec.), no. 32352/02, 5 January 2006.

Julin v. Estonia, nos. 16563/08, 40841/08, 8192/10 and 18656/10, 29 May 2012

Manuals:

Frédéric Sudre, Droit européen et international des droits de lhomme, 10è edition, Presses universitaires de France, 2011, p.341.

Harris, OBoyle and Warbrick, Law of the European Convention on Human Rights, 2nd edn (2009).

Jacobs, White and Ovey, The European Convention on Human Rights, 5th edn (2010).

Marie-Luce PAVIA, Le Principe de dignité de la personne humaine: un nouveau principe constitutionnel, in Les droits et libertés fondamentaux, 4è edition, Dalloz, 1997.