FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5830/10
Slobodan KATIČ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 January 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Helena Jäderblom, 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 Slobodan Katič, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Nova Gorica. He was represented before the Court by Odvetniška Družba Matoz, O.P. D.O.O., a law firm practising in Koper.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs N. Pintar Gosenca, 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 his sentence in the closed section of Dob Prison from 18 February 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.
The applicant has been held in cell no. 1, Block 3 which measures 59.89 square metres and holds fifteen inmates (4.00 square metres of personal space available to each inmate).
Upon his admission to prison it was established that the applicant had, after a long history of drug addiction, already been undergoing substitution therapy. He was prescribed 8 ml methadone by the prison doctor. At his initial interviews with the prison therapist and prison psychologist on 21 and 22 February 2008 the applicant was informed of the forms of assistance with regard to treatment of addictions, the conditions to participate in the respective programmes and that he could at any time seek assistance of the prison psychologist. The applicant was initially unsure whether he wished to participate in the programme but he agreed to give urine samples for testing purposes. At the diagnostic conference held on 17 March 2008 the applicant was also informed that he could be accommodated in the drug free section after he had proven complete abstinence from drugs.
On 18 April 2008 the applicant formally agreed to participate in the methadone treatment programme by signing the therapeutic agreement and confirming that his participation in the substitution therapy was voluntary, that he had been briefed about further methods of treatment and that he would be providing samples of his body fluids for purposes of testing the presence of drugs. Until October 2009 when the applicant started to refuse urine samples, his tests had been negative for psychoactive substances other then methadone.
Between February 2008 and October 2010 the applicant had eight sessions with the psychiatrist in connection with the substitution therapy. According to the report by the prison clinic dated 7 December 2010, the applicant on five further occasions refused to see a psychiatrist. At the appointment on 25 July 2008 the applicant requested a higher dosage of methadone. In December 2008 the applicant was prescribed 9 ml methadone and in March 2010 the dosage was increased to 11 ml.
In their observations dated 13 January 2011 the Government stressed that applicant never sought additional assistance of the prison psychologist. They further pointed out that, according to the notes by the prison psychiatrist, the applicant had not intended to reduce the dosage of methadone until towards the end of his prison sentence and stressed that this indicated that the applicant had not yet consciously decided to battle his drug addiction. They highlighted that if the applicant would show willingness to reduce the dosage of methadone; he would qualify for further steps in the addiction treatment programme, namely detoxification, followed by rehabilitation in the drug-free section, as informed at the initial interviews with the therapeutic staff.
In the aforementioned observations the Government dismissed the applicant’s allegations of intimidation by his fellow inmates by highlighting that the applicant’s personal file did not contain any record of the applicant being involved in conflicts with fellow inmates and that he had never requested a transferral into another room on this account. According to the protocols of the follow-up appointments of the applicant with the pedagogic staff, submitted by the Government, the applicant had on all occasions stated that he was content with the cell he was placed in.
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 his drug addiction treatment had not been successful due to the general conditions of detention, the lack of assistance by the psychologist and the fact that the prison did not separate addicted prisoners from the former drug addicts. He further submitted that he had been on several occasions intimidated by his fellow inmates and that he had nevertheless not been transferred into another cell.
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, compliance with the six-month rule and victim status, as the application should in any event be declared inadmissible for the reasons set out below.
As regards the applicant’s complaint concerning his drug addiction treatment and intimidation by the fellow prisoners, 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 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 allegations, apart from the general submissions on how the conditions of detention, lack of assistance by the psychologist and the fact that prison administration had not been separating addicted prisoners from former drug addicts were hindering his drug addiction treatment. The applicant also did not dispute the Government’s submissions that he had been informed of methods of drug addiction treatment and forms of assistance available and that he himself had on five occasions refused to see a psychiatrist in the connection with his therapy whereas he had never sought additional assistance by the psychologist. Furthermore, the applicant also did not dispute the Government’s position that it appeared that the applicant himself had not yet consciously decided to battle his drug addiction and shown sufficient willingness to reduce the methadone dosage which would enable him to qualify for detoxification that would be followed by a placement in the drug free section of the prison.
Furthermore, the applicant also did not provide any details of the alleged intimidation by his fellow inmates, nor did he dispute the submissions by the Government that there had been no record of such intimidation, and that he had never requested to be transferred into another room but had been regularly stating that he had been content with the cell he was placed in.
It follows that this complaint is 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 has 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 has accordingly also rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, as no arguable claim for the purpose of the aforementioned provision could have 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