Published on 5 June 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 43341/22
Vojtech KAVEČANSKÝ
against Slovakia
lodged on 5 September 2022
communicated on 15 May 2023
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns conditions of detention in the Košice Penitentiary Institution (Ústav na výkon väzby) including the possibility to have contact with family members.
The applicant, who is suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, was held in detention pending trial from 4 August 2021 until 27 May 2022. According to him, conditions of detention were inadequate in terms of size, light, fresh air, outside walks (being kept in his cell for up to 23 hours a day), medical treatment, sleep deprivation and personal hygiene, all of which had a negative impact on his medical condition. Moreover, treatment for his post-traumatic stress disorder was discontinued during the detention. External medical visits were carried out in presence of a prison guard and the applicant stayed handcuffed on hands and feet during the visits. Furthermore, the applicant’s contacts with members of his family were restricted particularly in that non-contact visits were allowed every 33 days and a first contact visit was permitted eight months following the applicant’s arrest. The applicant further complains that persons held in pre-trial detention are subjected to worse conditions than those who are serving prison sentence.
The applicant invokes Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular number of inmates placed in the same cell, sanitary conditions and the lack of possibility to spend time in fresh air, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment under Article 3 (see Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 139-59, 10 January 2012, and cases cited therein)?
2. Taking into account the applicant’s medical history, have the authorities met their obligation to ensure that his health and well-being were adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V), as required by Article 3 of the Convention?
3. Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private and/or family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, owing to the restrictions that applied during the applicant’s meetings with his family members? In particular, were the restrictions imposed in accordance with the law, did they pursue a legitimate aim and were they justified as being necessary in a democratic society (compare Chaldayev v. Russia, no. 33172/16, §§ 59-65, 28 May 2019; Andrey Smirnov v. Russia, no. 43149/10, §§ 35-38 and 51-56, 13 February 2018; and Bogusław Krawczak v. Poland, no. 24205/06, §§ 107-21, 31 May 2011)?
4. Has the applicant suffered discrimination in the enjoyment of his Convention rights on the grounds of his status as a remand prisoner contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention (see Costel Gaciu v. Romania, no. 39633/10, 23 June 2015; Varnas v. Lithuania, no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013; and Laduna v. Slovakia, no. 31827/02, 13 December 2011)?
5. Has the applicant exhausted the domestic remedies, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, having regard to the applicable legislation and practice (including, but not limited to section 59 of the Execution of Detention on Remand Act (Law no. 221/2006 Coll., as amended); section 38 (1) of the Execution of Detention on Remand Order (Decree of the Minister of Justice no. 437/2006 Coll., as amended); section 18 of the Public Prosecution Service Act (Law no. 153/2001 Coll., as amended); sections 65da et seq. of Prison and Court Guard Corps Act (Law no. 4/2001 Coll., as amended); decision of the Constitutional Court of 30 September 2021 in case no. II. ÚS 425/2021 and judgment of the Constitutional Court of 10 February 2022 in case no. III. ÚS 456/2021)? With regard to the criterion of effectiveness of any such remedies, what are the parameters and limitations of their functioning (see, mutatis mutandis, Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 38321/17, §§ 161-69 and 175, 31 March 2022)?
The Government are requested to submit copies of all the relevant documents which are presently not in the case file before the Court, in particular documents describing the conditions of detention at the Remand prison in the Košice Penitentiary Institution where the applicant was being held. This information should demonstrate in particular the size and capacity of the units and the number of occupants held in them since the beginning of the applicant’s detention, as well as information on the hygiene conditions therein.