FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 50330/13
Robert JUSTIN
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 November 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Angelika Nußberger, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges
and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 July 2013,
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 Robert Justin, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Dob.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Andreja Vran, State Attorney.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was held in Ljubljana prison, from 16 May 2012 to 18 July 2013.
At the time of lodging his application to the Court he had no longer been in Ljubljana prison. He had already been transferred to Dob prison, however he complained solely about the conditions of imprisonment in Ljubljana prison.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
For the relevant domestic law and practice see Bizjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25516/12, 8 July 2014, §§ 6-11.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the conditions of his imprisonment in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complained that he had not had at his disposal any effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 3.
THE LAW
A. Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention
The applicant complained that the conditions of his imprisonment had been inhuman and degrading. He invoked Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had suffered from severe overcrowding, inadequate ventilation during the summer and excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time.
The Government, relying on the same arguments as in the case of Bizjak (cited above, §§ 17-22), pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They argued that the applicant had an effective remedy at his disposal, a claim for compensation under Article 179 of the Civil Code, which he had failed to use.
The applicant maintained that a claim for compensation could not be considered effective as the domestic proceedings had been lengthy.
As regards the relevant principles on the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court refers to paragraphs 24‑26 of its decision in the case of Bizjak, where it has already assessed the effectiveness of a claim for compensation in respect of allegedly inadequate conditions of detention. In Bizjak, the applicant had already been released from Ljubljana prison at the time of lodging his application to the Court.
The Court concludes that the remedy at issue should in principle be used by a person in the applicant’s situation who intends to claim that his or her prison conditions were incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Bizjak, cited above, § 34).
The factual background in the present case is similar to the one in the case of Bizjak. At the time of lodging of his application to the Court the applicant in the present case was no longer detained in Ljubljana prison. He had been transferred to Dob prison for which the Court found that the conditions there were not incompatible with the Convention (see 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). In any event, the applicant complained merely about the conditions of imprisonment in Ljubljana prison.
Furthermore, the applicant’s objection as to the ineffectiveness of the remedy regarding the length of domestic compensation proceedings is based on the same arguments as those adduced by the applicant in Bizjak (cited above, § 23). Those allegations were not accepted in Bizjak (cited above, §§ 35-36) nor were the allegations regarding the amount of compensation awarded at domestic level (see Bizjak, cited above, §§ 37-44) and the Court sees no reasons that would lead it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
As the situation of the applicant in the present case is similar to the one of the applicant in the case of Bizjak and as the Court sees no reason to depart from the findings in that case, it concludes, as in Bizjak, that the applicant was obliged, under Article 35 of the Convention, to pursue the remedy under Article 179 of the Civil Code, which he has not done.
Therefore, this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
B. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention
The applicant complained that he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards the conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
As in Bizjak (cited above, § 48), the Court concludes that, even assuming that Article 13 is applicable, it has already found that a claim for compensation under Article 179 of the Civil Code would have provided the applicant with a potentially effective remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and that that finding is valid also in the context of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.
It follows that this complaint is 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.
Stephen Phillips Angelika Nußberger
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy