FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7048/10
Jožef GAJŠEK
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 June 2013 as a Chamber composed of:
Mark Villiger, President,
Angelika Nußberger,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ann Power-Forde,
Ganna Yudkivska,
Helena Jäderblom,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 December 2009,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jožef Gajšek, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Slovenska Bistrica. He is represented before the Court by Odvetniška Družba Matoz D.O.O., a law firm practising in Koper.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs N. Aleš Verdir.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was serving a sentence in the closed section of Dob Prison from 7 June 2007 until 17 December 2010.
As regards the facilities available to the applicant in the cells and common areas, as well as the health care regime in the prison, the conditions imposed on the applicant regarding activities outside the cells and contact with the outside world in general, see the Court’s decision in the case of Lalić and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), nos. 5711/10, 5719/10, 5754/10, 5803/10, 5956/10, 5958/10, 5987/10, 6091/10, 6647/10 and 6893/10, 27 September 2011.
From 7 June 2007 to 7 September 2007 and from 10 June 2008 to 22 September 2008 the applicant was held in a cell no 5, Block 2 which measured 59.25 square metres and held sixteen inmates (3.7 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). He was later transferred several times. From 8 September 2007 to 10 June 2008 he was held in a cell no 59, Block 1 which measured 14.91 square metres and held three inmates (4.97 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). From 22 September 2008 to 25 October 2010 he was held in a cell no 8/4, Block 2 which measured 16.47 square metres and held three inmates (5.49 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). From 25 October 2010 to 17 December 2010 he was in a single cell which measured 7.14 to 7.39 square metres.
According to the Government’s submissions dated 23 December 2010 the applicant sustained injuries in two physical conflicts with another prisoner on 7 September 2007 and 31 December 2007. Due to injuries suffered on 7 September 2007 he was hospitalised for two days. In connection to this incident the applicant was found guilty of a serious disciplinary offence. After his appeal, where he stated that the tension with the other prisoner was calmed down with assistance of prison staff, the Ministry of Justice found that the conflict could have been prevented or avoided if the applicant behaved appropriately. Further, according to a doctor’s report dated 13 August 2010 the applicant was treated on one hundred and twelve occasions for different medical problems and was regularly treated by a psychiatrist. According to the Government’s submissions dated 17 June 2011 the applicant visited a doctor on five occasions for treatment of his leg injury. As regards his allegations about an injury sustained on 25 October 2010, there is no note on it in his medical file. As regards his physical conflicts on 7 September 2007 and 25 October 2010, the Government submitted that the applicant had played an active part in those fights. The applicant also never complained to the prison authorities about any conflict situation, neither did he ask to be transferred to another cell or prison.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
For the relevant domestic law and practice, see paragraphs 33-35 and 38-47 of the Court’s judgment in the case of Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia (nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, 27 September 2011), and paragraphs 34-36 of Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia (nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, 27 September 2011), Lalić and Others, cited above, as well as Mešić v. Slovenia (no. 5767/10, 22 November 2011) and Ferenc v. Slovenia (no. 6682/10, 13 March 2012).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Dob Prison amounted to a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In particular, he complained of severe overcrowding, which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restrictions on time spent outside the cell, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychological assistance, inadequate measures as regards the rehabilitation of drug addicts, and exposure to violence from other inmates owing to insufficient prison security. He further submitted that the situation amounted to a structural problem, which had been acknowledged by the domestic authorities.
In addition, the applicant complained that he had been injured in physical conflicts with other inmates and that the prison authorities had not taken appropriate measures to prevent such incidents. He submitted that the incidents had been predictable and preventable, as prison authorities had had knowledge of the conflicts. He further complained that he had not received adequate medical treatment.
Citing Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant also complained of restrictions on visits, telephone conversations and correspondence.
The applicant lastly complained, under Article 13, that he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government’s objections concerning the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies and compliance with the six-month rule, as the application should in any event be declared inadmissible for the reasons set out below.
The Court notes that information relating to detention often falls within the knowledge of the domestic authorities. Accordingly, applicants might experience certain difficulties in procuring evidence to substantiate a complaint in that connection. Still, in such cases applicants may well be expected to submit at least a detailed account of the facts complained of and to provide – to the greatest possible extent – some evidence in support of their complaints (see, mutatis mutandis, Visloguzov v. Ukraine, no. 32362/02, § 45, 20 May 2010; Mešić v. Slovenia, cited above; and Ferenc v. Slovenia, cited above).
Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant provided no evidence or details as regards his allegations relating to the incidents of 7 September 2007 and 31 December 2007 whereas the Government submitted that the prison authorities had not been informed of any prior conflicts between the applicant and other inmates, therefore the incidents had not been predictable or preventable. The Government further stated that the applicant had actually played an active role in the conflicts and he had never asked to be transferred to another cell or prison. The applicant also did not dispute or comment on the Government’s submissions that he had been on one hundred and twelve occasions treated in the prison clinic and had received regular psychiatric assistance. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
As regards the remainder of the applicant’s complaints on general conditions of detention in the closed section of Dob Prison, the Court notes that these complaints are identical to those of the applicants in the case of Lalić and Others (cited above). In that case the Court found the general conditions of detention in the closed section of Dob Prison, including the medical and psychological care provided to the prisoners held therein, as well as the arrangements concerning security measures, and the restrictions on maintaining contact with people outside the prison to be adequate vis-à-vis the Convention standards. It accordingly also rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, as no arguable claim for the purpose of the aforementioned provision had been established.
The Court takes note of the similar factual background of the aforementioned case and the present application, including the fact that the present applicant always had sufficient personal space in the cell in which he was detained. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekMark Villiger
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy