FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6125/10
Albin MRAVLJAK against Slovenia
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 November 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 18 December 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Albin Mravljak, Mr Milan Mitrič and Mr Jure Trupej, whose birthdates are indicated in the annex, are Slovenian nationals. They are represented before the Court by Odvetniška Družba Matoz, O.P. D.O.O., a law firm practising in Koper. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agents, Mrs V. Klemenc, Mrs T. Mihelič Žitko, and Mrs A. Vran, State Attorneys.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicants served, or are currently serving, sentences in the closed section of Dob Prison.
1. The general conditions of detention
As regards the facilities available to the applicants in the cells and common areas, as well as the health care regime in the prison, the conditions imposed on the applicants 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.
2. Length and material conditions of detention in the applicants’ cells
(a) Application No. 6152/10 (Mr. Mravljak)
Between 6 November 2007 and June 2010 the applicant was held in cell no. 3, Block 4 which measured 59.57 square metres and held seventeen inmates (3.50 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). Between June 2010 and 2 August 2010 the applicant was held in cell no. 11, Block 4 which measured 31.70 square metres and held 6 inmates (5.28 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). On 2 August 2010 the applicant was transferred into a single cell no. 7, Block 4 which measured 7.17 square metres.
(b) Application No. 6131/10 (Mr. Mitrič)
Between 15 May 2009 and 12 March 2010 the applicant was held in cell no. 5, Block 3 which measured 59.25 square metres and held fourteen inmates (4.23 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). Between 12 March 2010 and 22 June 2010 the applicant was placed in one of the cells in Block 1 that served as rooms for inmates that needed to be placed under a stricter regime, measuring between 32.22 and 32.39 square metres and accommodating four inmates (at least 8.06 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). On 22 June 2010 the applicant was transferred into cell no. 5, Block 4 which measured 59.25 square metres and held sixteen inmates (3.70 square metres of personal space available to each inmate).
(c) Application No. 6285/10 (Mr. Trupej)
Between 12 May 2009 and 6 July 2009 the applicant was held in cell no. 6, Block 2 which measured 59.25 square metres and held fifteen inmates (3.95 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). Between 6 July 2009 and 14 May 2010 the applicant was placed in cell no. 32, Block 1 which served as one of the rooms for inmates that needed to be placed under a stricter regime, measuring 32.39 square metres and accommodating four inmates (8.09 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). On 14 May 2010 the applicant was transferred into cell no. 38, Block 1 that served as patients’ room measuring 17.96 square metres and accommodating three inmates (5.99 square metres of personal space available to each inmate).
3. Health care and other facts concerning the separate submissions of the applicants
(a) Application No. 6152/10 (Mr. Mravljak)
In the period between November 2007 and August 2010 the applicant was on twenty-four occasions treated for different health problems in the prison clinic. According to the report by the prison clinic dated 13 August 2010 the applicant had had one appointment with the psychiatrist on 12 December 2007. He later failed to attend the follow-up appointment. The report by the prison clinic dated 17 December 2010 relates to the applicant’s hospitalisation in November 2006 for the purpose of obtaining an expert opinion on his mental state after he had committed the offence in respect of which he had been charged and subsequently convicted, and states that the applicant had, even though there had been some symptoms present, eventually not been diagnosed with a mental disorder. This information was noted by the prison psychologist in the protocol of the initial interview with the applicant dated 20 November 2007. The prison psychologist gave instructions to be attentive to unusual behaviour of the applicant. According to the report by the prison psychologist dated 11 August 2010 the applicant had been on the basis of information on his alcohol abuse encouraged to participate in a group therapy for treatment of alcohol abuse. After he had in February 2010 shown some interest in participating in the therapy he later failed to attend the sessions and was excluded from the group.
According to the report of 13 August 2010 the applicant had on one occasion, namely on 30 October 2009, mentioned gastric problems and had not referred to these thereafter.
(b) Application No. 6131/10 (Mr. Mitrič)
The applicant shares the room with smokers. Smoking is forbidden in Dob Prison in the living as well as sleeping quarters while it is permitted in the corridors close-by to the sleeping quarters where ventilation is assured by the use of air suction devices and by opening of the windows.
In his childhood the applicant had underdone a heart surgery. According to the report by the prison clinic dated 7 December 2010 the exposure to passive smoking by the applicant did not pose a higher health risk than it would to the rest of the population.
Upon his admission to prison the applicant was informed of the possibility to ask for a transferral to a room occupied by non-smokers only. As submitted in the observations of the respondent Government dated 22 December 2010 the applicant had never requested to be transferred to a non-smokers room. In their additional observations dated 14 June 2011 the Government submitted that the applicant had also never informed the prison authorities that one of his fellow‑convicts had been smoking in the sleeping rooms. According to the report cited by the prison clinic the applicant had never mentioned health problems on account of the alleged exposure to smoking.
(c) Application No. 6285/10 (Mr. Trupej)
At the initial medical examination of the applicant upon his admission to prison, on 11 May 2009, it was discovered that the applicant was addicted to drugs and that he was undergoing a substitution therapy. According to the report by the prison clinic dated 7 December 2010 the applicant had until that date visited the psychiatrist on thirteen occasions. On one occasion he refused to attend the follow-up appointment. On 19 January 2010 the applicant was prescribed antidepressants which were stopped on 1 October 2010 after the applicant reported improvement. At his appointments with the general practitioner the applicant only mentioned problems with sleeping and nervousness before the court’s hearings.
On 6 July 2009 the applicant was placed under a stricter prison regime after he had been on several occasions found in possession of drugs, reported for dealing with them and also failed to give a sample for drug testing.
In their observations dated 22 December 2010 the respondent Government dismissed the allegations of the applicant concerning the risk of spreading Hepatitis C on the basis of the allegedly poor hygiene conditions and sharing the room with convicts who were diagnosed with Hepatitis C, as submitted by the applicant. The Government recalled that the convicts were offered educational materials and awareness-raising lectures on transmittable diseases. They were also provided with the necessary hygienic products, such as disinfectants and condoms. In addition, the Government also referred to the Recommendations No. R (98) 7 of the Committee of Ministers Concerning the Ethical and Organisational Aspects of Health Care in Prison, according to which isolation and segregation of convicts with infectious conditions, such as Hepatitis C, were only justified if the same measure would also be taken outside the prison environment and for the same medical reasons.
According to the report by the prison clinic of 10 June 2011 the applicant had had one appointment with the dentist on 7 July 2010. He had been scheduled for another appointment on 21 May 2011 but he had refused to attend.
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 applicants complained that the conditions of their detention in Dob Prison amounted to a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In particular, they 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. They further submitted that the situation amounted to a structural problem, which had been acknowledged by the domestic authorities.
In addition the first applicant, Mr. Mravljak, also complained that he had not received adequate psychological and medical assistance in connection with his mental distress and that due to his mental distress he developed a gastric disease.
The second applicant, Mr. Mitrič, complained that he had a heart disease but was nevertheless exposed to smoking by his fellow convicts and that he shared the room with smokers.
The third applicant, Mr. Trupej, also complained that he had received inadequate treatment concerning his mental distress, that he had become addicted to drugs after his admission to prison and that he was under a high risk of being infected with Hepatitis C due to poor hygiene conditions, high percentage of convicts who abused drugs and the fact that convicts who were diagnosed with hepatitis C were not isolated from other convicts. In his submissions of 18 May 2011 the applicant also claimed that he did not have access to the dentist.
Citing Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants also complained of restrictions on visits, telephone conversations and correspondence.
The applicants lastly complained, under Article 13, that they did not have any effective remedy at their disposal as regards their 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 applications should in any event be declared inadmissible for the reasons set out below.
As regards the separate complaints of the applicants, 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 none of the three applicants provided any evidence or details as regards their allegations and did not dispute the Government’s submissions on adequacy of their treatment in any detail.
In particular, the first applicant, Mr. Mravljak, did not provide any concrete information of denied assistance with regard to his alleged mental distress. He also did not dispute the Government’s submissions that he had not appeared at a follow-up appointment with the psychiatrist, nor did he provide any reasons why he had failed to attend the group therapy. He further did not dispute the Government’s submissions that he had only once mentioned his alleged gastric problems with the prison clinic doctor and had not referred to these thereafter.
Furthermore, the second applicant, Mr. Mitrič, did not provide any concrete information on the alleged violation of smoking prohibitions by the fellow inmates; nor did he indicate that he had ever reported such violation to the prison authorities. The applicant also failed to dispute the Government’s submissions that he had never reported health problems due to the alleged exposure to smoking and that he had also never asked for a transferral to a room for non-smokers only.
In a similar manner also the third applicant, Mr. Trupej, did not provide any information as to the denied assistance with regard to his mental distress. He did not dispute the submissions by the Government that he had visited the psychiatrist on thirteen occasions and that he had not mentioned any mental distress to the general practitioner, apart from problems with sleeping and nervousness before hearings. As regards his complaint that he had become addicted to drugs while in prison, the applicant did not contest the Government’s submissions that he had been addicted to drugs already upon his admission to prison, as had been discovered at his initial medical examination. The applicant also failed to provide any relevant information concerning the alleged risk of becoming infected with Hepatitis C, apart from the general submissions on the risk of spreading infectious diseases in prison. He also did not dispute the Government’s submissions on preventive measures taken by the prison authorities. Finally, according to the applicant’s medical file, the applicant had had access to the dentist whereas he himself did not provide any concrete information that he had ever been denied access to the dentist services.
It follows that the above complaints are all manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
As regards the remainder of the 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 applicants’ 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 applicants always had sufficient personal space in the cell in which they were 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
Decides to join the applications;
Declares the applications inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Appendix
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant’s
Date of birth
Place of residence
6125/10
18/12/2009
Albin MRAVLJAK
14/12/1957
Radlje Ob Dravi
6131/10
18/12/2009
Milan MITRIC
15/02/1979
Ljubljana
6285/10
18/12/2009
Jure TRUPEJ
03/09/1983
Celje
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy