Communicated on 26 April 2016
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 59546/12
Ismet KARABULUT
against Germany
lodged on 14 September 2012
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns the prohibition on persons detained on remand to receive any parcels containing food, beverages or tobacco (Nahrungs- und Genussmittel) under the provisions of the Execution of Detention on Remand in North Rhine-Westphalia Act (Untersuchungshaftvollzugsgesetz Nordrhein-Westfalen), which entered into force on 1 March 2010. Prisoners whose conviction is final are allowed to receive such parcels three times a year.
The applicant was detained on remand as of 25 February 2010 on suspicion of drug trafficking on a large scale committed jointly with others. He was later convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment. Under domestic law, his detention on remand lasted until his conviction became final on 31 May 2012. The applicant lodged a constitutional complaint against the relevant provision of the Execution of Detention on Remand in North Rhine-Westphalia Act on 28 February 2011. The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of 7 March 2012 not to accept his complaint for adjudication was served on the applicant on 14 March 2012.
The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, that, unlike convicted prisoners, he did not have a right to receive parcels containing food, beverages or tobacco. He further claims that he did not have an effective remedy before the domestic authorities, as required by Article 13 of the Convention, for his complaints in this respect.
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES
1. Can the applicant claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34, in respect of his complaint about the prohibition on persons detained on remand to receive any parcels containing food, beverages or tobacco?
2. Has the applicant exhausted all domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of the said complaint?
3. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private or family life or his correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?
4. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his right to respect for his private or family life or his correspondence on the ground of his detention on remand, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 of the Convention?
5. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 8 of the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy