Communicated on 2 October 2019
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 41510/16 and 81651/17
Tomáš PAPAJ against Slovakia
lodged on 11 July 2016 and 27 November 2017 respectively
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the issue of judicial review of decisions taken by prison authorities, the right of access to a court and the principle of legal certainty. Relying on Articles 6 § 1, 8 and 13 of the Convention, the applicant complains that the decision of 5 June 2013 of Leopoldov Prison by which he was disciplinarily sanctioned and the decisions of 8 December 2015 and of 11 January 2016 of the same authority by which he was refused a visit with direct contact were not subject to judicial review although they interfered with his rights and freedoms. In that regard, he points to the divergent domestic jurisprudence of the Supreme Court (as confirmed by the Constitutional Court) in these matters and argues that a review by the prosecution authorities does not offer the same guarantees as the review provided by administrative courts. The applicant claims, furthermore, that due to the contradictory domestic case-law and to the refusal of judicial review of the challenged decisions, he did not have access to a court nor an effective remedy in respect of his complaints, and that there was a breach of the principle of legal certainty.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil or criminal head applicable to the disputes in the present case? If so, did the applicant have access to a court for the determination of his civil rights and obligations or the criminal charges brought against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see e.g. De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, §§ 147-150, 23 February 2017)? Having regard to the divergent case-law of the Supreme Court in respect of judicial review of decisions taken by prison authorities, has the principle of legal certainty been observed in the present case (see, mutatis mutandis, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 116, 29 November 2016)?
2. Concerning the refusal of visits with direct contact, was such interference with the applicant’s rights under Article 8 § 1 in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see e.g. Khoroshenko v. Russia [GC], no. 41418/04, §§ 123-126, ECHR 2015; Kurkowski v. Poland, no. 36228/06, §§ 93-97, 9 April 2013)?
3. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints under Article 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy