FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6427/10
Anton KREMPL
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 Anton Krempl, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Križevci Gornja Radgona. 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, Mrs N. Aleš Verdir, 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 May 2007.
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.
Between 23 May 2007 and 15 July 2010 the applicant was 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). Afterwards he was moved to a single cell no 17, Block 3 which measured 7.17 square metres.
The applicant had his initial psychological examination on 10 May 2007 where he was informed of the option to ask for psychological help at any time. Since then he was treated by a psychologist on 2 September 2008 and 10 February 2009. According to the report by the prison clinic dated 13 August 2010 the applicant was from 9 May 2007 treated on ninety-three occasions for different health problems. According to the medical report dated 7 December 2010 he received psychiatric assistance on five occasions from 9 April 2010 to 15 September 2010 and was receiving antidepressants due to his chronic depression; however he refused to attend an examination on 11 November 2010. He often underwent psychiatric control due to his suicidal thoughts. As he was suspected of being a suicide risk, he was intensively monitored in August 2009, invited to a session with a psychologist and was referred to a psychiatrist. He was offered to be placed in a clinic room, however he refused that. According to the Government’s submissions dated 17 June 2011 he never asked for a dental examination.
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 he had suffered from mental distress, that he had had suicidal thoughts and that he had not received adequate psychological and psychiatric as well as dental treatment.
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.
As regards the applicant’s complaint that he did not receive adequate psychological, psychiatric and dental assistance, 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 medical 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 on inadequate medical treatment. He also did not dispute or at least comment on the Government’s submissions that he had been on ninety-three occasions treated in the prison clinic and that he had never asked for a dental examination. As regards the applicant’s allegation about inadequate psychological and psychiatric assistance, the Court notes that at his initial psychological examination the applicant was informed of the option to ask for a psychological help at any time. He was later treated by a psychologist and a psychiatrist on several occasions. He was treated by a psychologist on 2 September 2008 and 10 February 2009, he also received psychiatric assistance on five occasions from 9 April 2010 to 15 September 2010, however refused to attend an examination on 11 November 2010. He also refused to be placed in a clinic room. Further, he was receiving antidepressants and often underwent psychiatric monitoring due to suicidal thoughts. Moreover, as a prisoner at risk of suicide he was intensively monitored in August 2009, was invited to a session with a psychologist and was referred to a psychiatrist. 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.
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 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 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