CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

ALLA TYMOFEYEVA CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ Bulgarian law of criminal, disciplinary, and civil redress the authorities had not provided the applicant with these measures. Consequently, it was proven that the legal system as a whole had failed to ensure the procedural obligations under Article 2 of the ECHR. In 2013, the ECtHR communicated to the Italian Government the complaints of Ms. Alice Alexandra Volintiru, which are similar in substance to those in the Dodov v. Bulgaria case in that death of the applicant was caused by poor hospital conditions and deficient investigation. 33 These proceedings before the ECtHR are still pending. Article 3 (prohibition of torture) : this provision is often cited in complaints of older persons. It would be impossible to provide even a very short description of each case on this subject. Therefore, only a summary of the main concerns of elderly persons will be provided. Overall, the issues raised by the applicants include poor conditions of detention and its incompatibility with a person’s age, 34 deportation, 35 insufficiency of old-age pension and other social benefits to maintain non-degrading standard of living, 36 as well as the obligation to perform military service under the same settings as for young persons. 37 The key principles, which can be derived from the jurisprudence on the subject-matter, are as follows: 1) there is no prohibition in the ECHR against the detention in prison of persons who reach an advance age; 38 2) certain conditions of detention of an elderly person over a lengthy period might raise an issue under Article 3, but regard is to be had to the particular circumstances of each specific case; 39 3) an insufficient amount of pension and the other social benefits may, in principle, lead to a breach of Article 3, but only if incompatible with human dignity. 40 Degrading treatment is also prohibited with respect to the performance of military service. 41 It is of interest to note that in the case of Papon v. France 42 the ECtHR observed that none of the 47 states who are party to the ECHR had an upper age limit for detention; however, age in conjunction with other factors such as state of health may be taken into account when a sentence is passed or is being served as when imprisonment is replaced by house arrest. Article 4 (prohibition of slavery and forced labour) : this Article is rarely invoked in general; the same is true with regard to third age persons’ complaints. Nonetheless, a few interesting judgments and decisions on the subject were taken up by the ECtHR. The issues raised by the applicants concerned an allegedly forced labour in prison, which resulted in non-affiliation of old-age pension 43 and the requirement for a prisoner to work beyond the retirement age. 44 The conclusions of the ECtHR in this respect are that the obligatory work performed by a prisoner even of an old age has to be regarded as “work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention” within the meaning of Article 4 § 3 (a) 45 and it does not 33 Volintiru v. Italy, no. 8530/08, Application communicated to the Italian Government on 19 March 2013. 34 See e.g. Farbtuhs v. Latvia , no. 4672/02, § 36, 2 December 2004. 35 See e.g. Chyzhevska v. Sweden , no. 60794/11, decision of 25 September 2012. 36 See e.g. Larioshina v. Russia , no. 56869/00, decision of 23 April 2002. 37 See Taştan v. Turkey , no. 63748/00, § 14, 4 March 2008. 38 Sawoniuk v. the United Kingdom (dec.), no. 63716/00, ECHR 2001-VI.

39 Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, ECHR 2001-VI. 40 Budina v. Russia (dec.), no. 45603/05, decision of 18 June 2009. 41 Taştan v. Turkey , no. 63748/00, § 31, 4 March 2008. 42 Papon v. France (no. 1) (dec.), no. 64666/01, ECHR 2001-VI. 43 Stummer v. Austria [GC], no. 37452/02, § 112, ECHR 2011. 44 Meier v. Switzerland , no. 10109/14, § 33, 9 February 2016. 45 Floroiu v. Romania (dec.), no. 15303/10, decision of 12 March 2013.

272