Přehled
Rozhodnutí
DECISION
Application no. 27222/95
by Vincenzo ESPOSITO
against Italy
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section) sitting on 9 March 1999 as a Chamber composed of
Mr C. Rozakis, President,
Mr M. Fischbach,
Mr B. Conforti,
Mr P. Lorenzen,
Mrs M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska,
Mr A.B. Baka,
Mr E. Levits, Judges,
with Mr E. Fribergh, 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 14 November 1994 by Vincenzo Esposito against Italy and registered on 3 May 1995 under file no. 27222/95;
Having regard to the reports provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 10 September 1998;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is an Italian national, born in 1956 and living in Trani.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is married to a woman who is 100% invalid and forced to use a wheelchair. They have a son, born in 1988, who suffers from a very serious heart and lung condition. On 9 September 1995 the applicant's son underwent a heart surgery. The applicant's family lives in Naples.
On an unspecified date the applicant was sentenced to 15 years' imprisonment for belonging to a mafia-type association ("associazione camorristica") and for drug-related crimes. Since October 1992 the applicant has been detained under the special detention regime provided for by Article 41-bis of Law no. 354 of 26 July 1975, as amended by Law Decree no. 306 of 8 June 1992, converted into Law no. 356 of 7 August 1992, which imposes a particularly severe detention regime on prisoners sentenced for certain crimes, in particular mafia-related crimes. The applicant is allowed to see his family only once a month. Until 2 October 1997, the applicant was detained in a prison located on the Island of Pianosa, about one hour away from the Tuscany coast.
On 16 May 1994 the applicant's wife wrote to the Ministry of Justice seeking that his husband be transferred to a prison closer to Naples on the ground that, since she is in a wheelchair and their son is seriously ill, the journey from Naples to the Island of Pianosa is practically unfeasible for them. On 14 November 1994 the applicant wrote to the Ministry of Justice reiterating the same request. On 12 February 1995 the Ministry of Justice rejected the applicant's request.
In 1995, the applicant was temporarily transferred to the detention centre of Secondigliano (Naples) since appeal proceedings were pending before the Court of Appeal of Naples. These appeal proceedings appear to be currently pending. During 1995 the applicant was also temporarily held in a prison hospital in Pisa due to the fact that he had to undergo a surgical operation. He was subsequently taken back to Pianosa.
On 2 October 1997 pursuant to a ministerial decree the applicant was transferred to the prison of Rebibbia, in Rome, since the prison of Pianosa was closed down.
On 5 October 1998 the applicant was transferred to the prison of Trani. His request to be transferred to Naples was refused by the Department of Prison Management (Dipartimento Amministrazione Penitenziaria).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the refusal to transfer him to a prison closer to where his family lives in order to facilitate family visits. He claimed that, given the serious medical condition of his wife and son, the distance from Naples, where they live, and both the Pianosa prison, where he was detained until October 1997, and the Rome prison, where he is currently detained, has rendered it practically impossible for them to meet since October 1992. He invoked Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
The application was introduced on 14 November 1994 and registered on 3 May 1995.
On 20 May 1998, the Commission decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 of the Convention to the respondent Government.
The Government’s written observations were submitted on 10 September 1998. The applicant failed to submit his observations in reply within the set time-limit.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
By registered letter of 7 December 1998, the Registry requested the applicant to submit his observations in reply to those of the Government, warning him that his failure to reply might lead to the application being struck off the Court’s list of cases. The applicant, who received the said letter on 16 December 1998, has not replied to date.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The applicant maintained that the refusal to transfer him to a prison closer to where his family lives in order to facilitate family visits amounted to a breach of Articles 3, 6 and 8 of the Convention.
The Court notes that the applicant failed to reply to the registered letter which was sent to him by the Registry seeking his reply to the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application, which letter the applicant received on 16 December 1998. The Court further notes that the applicant was warned that his failure to reply might lead to a decision to strike the application out of the Court’s case-list. Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue the petition.
Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Erik Fribergh Christos Rozakis
Registrar President