FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7236/10
Artur GALIČ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 October 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 December 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Artur Galič, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Pišece. He is represented before the Court by Odvetniška Družba Matoz O.P. D.O.O., a lawyer practising in Koper.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Pešec.
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 22 January 2001 until 21 April 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 22 January 2001 to 28 June 2005 the applicant was held in a cell no 5, Block 3 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 to a single cell, Block 3 which measured 7.17 square metres.
According to the Government’s submissions dated 22 December 2010 there is no note in prison documents that the applicant requested a transfer due to conflicts with other prisoners or on any other grounds. The applicant also never mentioned that he had been subjected to conflicts, threats or other forms of psychological pressure. However, the applicant was a subject of disciplinary proceedings on about twenty-eight occasions. He was also engaged in a physical conflict with another prisoner. As regards his conflict with a prison guard on 8 March 2006, the applicant felt pain in his face but had no visible injuries, except for a small abrasion on the upper lip. The guard filed a disciplinary violation report against the applicant due to an attack, insult and threats and the applicant was found guilty of committing a serious disciplinary offence. Further, the Government submitted that on 23 January the applicant had undergone a health examination and had also been examined by a pulmonologist, however no asthma had been diagnosed then or later during his imprisonment. According to a doctor’s report dated 13 August 2010 the applicant was treated on six hundred and fifty-nine occasions. According to the Government’s submissions dated 14 June 2011 the applicant received Methadone. He received psychological treatment on at least fifteen occasions. He also received regular psychiatric treatment, however he refused visits to a psychiatrist on five occasions. He also received regular dental treatment.
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 had several conflicts with other prisoners in a cell and a physical conflict with a prison guard, however his request for a transfer had not been granted. He further complained that he had had asthma and had suffered mental distress, however he had not received adequate psychological and psychiatric as well as dental 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.
As regards the applicant’s complaint that he did not receive adequate medical treatment, the Court recalls that Article 3 imposes an obligation on the States to ensure that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI). The Court would further note 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 additional allegations. The applicant also did not dispute nor comment on the Government’s submissions that he had been on six hundred and fifty-nine occasions treated in the prison clinic, that he had refused psychiatric assistance on few occasions and that he had not been diagnosed with asthma. He also did not dispute or comment on the fact that there had been several disciplinary proceedings against him. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 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 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy