FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9570/12
Gorazd BOLTEŽAR
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 February 2012,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 18 September 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Gorazd Boltežar, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1976.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs T. Mihelič Žitko.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in Ljubljana Prison and under Article 13 about the absence of an effective remedy in that regard.
On 23 January 2013, the complaints were communicated to the Government.
THE LAW
After the parties had failed to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 18 September 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
The declaration provided as follows:
« By issuing this unilateral statement, the Republic of Slovenia recognizes that the applicant Gorazd Boltežar, as a result of established living conditions in the Ljubljana Institution for Serving Prison Sentences, in the periods from 21 June 2011 to 11 July 2012, totaling 387 days, suffered a violation of his rights according to Article 3, the prohibition of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, and Article 13, the right to an effective legal remedy, of the Convention. The Government of the Republic of Slovenia declares that it is ready to pay the applicant financial compensation in the total amount of EUR 12,500.10 (in words: twelve thousand, five hundred euros and ten cents) as compensation for the entire non-pecuniary damage inflicted on him in the above-mentioned periods as a result of the living conditions in the Ljubljana Institution for Serving Prison Sentences. The stated amount shall be paid to the applicant within three months from the day of notification of the decision inviting the Court to strike the application from its list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 1c of the Convention. The Government of the Republic of Slovenia also undertakes that in the event of delay in payment to pay, for the entire period of delay, simple interest at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank plus three percentage points. The Government of the Republic of Slovenia believes that explicit recognition of the violation of the rights under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention and its commitment to pay the financial compensation in accordance with the aforementioned conditions constitute an appropriate compensation for the caused non-pecuniary damage, which is proportionate to the duration and gravity of the violation, and that it corresponds to the financial capacity of the respondent High Contracting Party. »
By a letter received by the Court on 31 October 2013, the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the grounds that the Government excludes the responsibility under Article 3 of the Convention for the alleged inadequate dental care available in Ljubljana Prison.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the cases of Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03.
The Court has established in cases brought against Slovenia its practice concerning complaints regarding conditions of detention (see, for example, Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia, nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, 20 October 2011).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases –, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention (Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).
As to the applicants’ remaining complaints, having regard to all the evidence in its possession, and in so far as it has jurisdiction to examine the allegations, the Court has not found any appearance of a breach of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the Government’s declaration under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention concerning the complaint about the material conditions of detention and a lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the part of the application concerning the complaint about the material conditions of detention and a lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy