FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6399/10
Zlatko KAJTAZOVIĆ
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 Zlatko Kajtazović, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Ljubljana. 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, Mr L. Bembič, 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 has been serving a sentence in the closed section of Dob Prison since 5 December 2008.
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.
Since 12 December 2008 the applicant has been held in a cell no 1, Block 3 which measured 59.89 square metres and held fifteen inmates (3.99 square metres of personal space available to each inmate).
According to the Government’s submissions dated 22 December 2010 the prison governor adopts a fire safety guide as required by the Fire Protection Act and in 2005 and 2010 two fire safety guides were adopted. The Government submitted inter alia that the prison has provided hand-held extinguishers and that there has been a system of separate water mains with hydrants for fighting fires. In 2005 and 2010 two inspections were also carried out. In 2005 prison authorities were asked by the Inspectorate of the Republic of Slovenia for Protection Against Natural and Other Disasters to enable adequate water supply for the purpose of fighting fires and the prison later informed the Inspectorate that the deficiency has been rectified. During an inspection in 2010 the Inspectorate found that the prison did not have a fire protection or evacuation plan. Despite that, the Inspectorate found this to be only a minor offence, as both plans were being prepared at the time of the inspection and would be finished in few months. Further, according to the Government’s submissions the evacuation paths have been marked in prison already before the 2010 inspection and the prison has been ensuring fire safety through the respect of fire legislation, through regular inspection of fire extinguishers and water mains with hydrants, through training of the staff, through measuring and repairing lightning conductors etc.
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 about the alleged lack of adequate fire safety in the prison.
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 fire security. He did not dispute or at least comment on the Government’s submissions on adequately regulated fire safety in the prison, whereas the Government submitted that the prison has ensured fire safety through the respect of fire legislation, through regular inspection of fire extinguishers and water mains with hydrants, through training of the staff, by providing hand-held extinguishers and a system of separate water mains with hydrants for fighting fires and through other activities. Further, the lack of fire protection plan and evacuation plan was identified only as a minor offence by domestic authorities during the 2010 inspection, as the plans were being prepared at the time of the inspection and would be finished in few months. Also the evacuation paths have been marked in the prison already before the 2010 inspection. The Court therefore concludes that this part of the application has not been properly substantiated and developed by the applicant. Accordingly, it should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to 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 the 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 the 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 by a majority
Declares the application inadmissible.
Claudia WesterdiekMark Villiger
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy