FIRST SECTION
Application no. 6279/12
Josip JURIĆ
against Croatia
lodged on 29 March 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Josip Jurić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1975 and is presently serving a prison sentence in Šibenik Prison.
The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
3. Following several convictions for forgery and fraud, the applicant was sentenced by the Osijek Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Osijeku) to a single sentence of fifteen years’ imprisonment and by the Županja Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Županji) to additional twenty days’ imprisonment.
4. After having being placed in several detention facilities in Croatia, on 27 April 2011 the applicant was transferred from Pula Prison (Zatvor u Puli) to Lepoglava State Prison (Kaznionica u Lepoglavi).
5. On an unspecified date in 2011 the applicant lodged an objection against the decision of his transfer arguing that he had suffered from asthma and had been transferred to inadequate climatic environment. On 13 May 2011 the Head Office of the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice (Ministartsvo pravosuđa Uprava za zatvorski sustav Središnji ured; hereinafter: the “Head Office of Prison Administration”) dismissed the applicant’s objection as ill-founded.
6. Against the above decision of the Head Office of the Prison Administration the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) and on 24 November 2011 the Constitutional Court declared it inadmissible on the ground that it did not have competence in the matter.
7. During his stay in Lepoglava State Prison the applicant was first placed in a cell measuring 33,53 square metres with eleven other inmates. Then he was transferred to another cell measuring 16 square metres where he was accommodated together with four other persons.
8. On an unspecified day in 2011 the applicant complained to the sentence-execution judge of the Varaždin County Court (Županijski sud u Varaždinu) about the conditions of his detention. He argued that the cumulative effect of the overcrowdings of his cell and his deteriorating asthma diagnosis had violated his rights to appropriate accommodation.
9. On 7 November 2011 the sentence-execution judge of the Varaždin County Court found a violation of the applicant’s right to an appropriate accommodation and ordered the prison administration to remedy the situation. The relevant part of the decision reads:
“...
In view of the report submitted by Lepoglava State Prison concerning the accommodation of prisoner Josip Jurić, and the fact that cell no. 16 on the Department 2B, where he was first placed, as well as cell no. 2 in the Department 2C, where he is presently placed, do not meet the space requirements under Section 74 § 3 of the [Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act], it is obvious that there has been an unlawful treatment of the said prisoner by [Lepoglava State Prison] concerning his right to an accommodation in an adequate cell ...”
10. On 11 November 2011 the applicant requested the warden of Lepoglava State Prison to comply with the decision of the sentence execution judge.
11. On the same day the warden of Lepoglava State Prison replied:
“ ...
It is well known fact that there is a general lack of space in the entire Croatian penitentiary system. In order to create adequate accommodation facilities the existing prisons are being renovated and we are also planning construction of new facilities. In this prison we are particularly concerned with the requirements for the protection of human dignity as well as human and positive treatment [of the inmates]. We are also concerned with the size of our accommodation and sanitary facilities, hygiene, food, which is secured in sufficient quantities and properly prepared and served, as well as health of the prisoners and their daily freedom of movement requirments and physical exercise.
The deficiency in the size of the accommodation facilities at issue is only of a temporary character until we reconstruct some new cells. In any event they are not directed personally against you in order to deprive you of any of your rights. As soon as the conditions would be met you will be placed in a room which will fully satisfy the requirements of Section 74 of the [Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act].”
12. Against the decision of the sentence-execution judge of 7 November 2011, Lepoglava State Prison lodged an appeal with the Varaždin County Court.
13. On 18 November 2011 a three-judge panel of the Varaždin County Court dismissed the appeal as ill-founded and thus the decision of the sentence-execution judge became final.
14. In the meantime the applicant complained to the Varaždin County Court that the decision of the sentence-execution judge had not been enforced.
15. On 7 December 2011 the President of the Varaždin County Court replied to the applicant that that court had no competence in enforcing the decisions of the sentence-execution judges and that he could complain to the Head Office of the Prison Administration.
16. On an unspecified date in 2011 the applicant complained to the Head Office of the Prison Administration and on 19 December 2011 he received the following reply:
“...
We are taking all necessary measures to secure that, together with other rights, you are placed in appropriate accommodation so that the dormitory in which you are placed offers you at least four square metres of personal place. This is to be effected when the objective circumstances allow. Consequently the decision of the sentence‑execution judge of the Varaždin County Court will thereby be enforced.”
17. On 27 March 2012 a physician specialist for lung diseases recommended that the applicant be transferred to a more appropriate, if possible Mediterranean, climatic environment due to his asthma.
18. On 23 May 2012 the applicant was transferred from Lepoglava State Prison to Šibenik Prison (Zatvor u Šibeniku) where he is currently serving his prison sentence.
COMPLAINTS
19. The applicant complained, under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention, about the conditions of his detention in Lepoglava State Prison in that he had been placed in overcrowded cells and that the decision of the sentence-execution judge finding a violation of his rights in that respect could not have been enforced. He also complained about the lack of an appropriate medical treatment in Pula Prison and Lepoglava State Prison.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the conditions of the applicant’s detention, in view of the size of his cell, the number of inmates placed in the same cell at the material time or any other condition amounted specifically or cumulatively to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, 10 January 2012)?
In that regard, the Government are required to provide detailed information about the conditions in which the applicant has been detained, including information about the size of each of the applicant’s dormitories and their state of repair, access to drinking water, access to toilet and washing facilities, access to natural light and fresh air, hygiene, food, clothing, heating, ventilation, outdoor activities, opportunity to work and educational and leisure facilities.
2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Article 3 of the Convention complaint concerning the conditions of his detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The Government are required to submit all relevant materials concerning the applicant’s conviction, copies of all of the applicant’s submissions to any State authority about the conditions in Lepoglava State Prison, as well as replies in that connection.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy