FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6154/10
Robert RAUTER
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 April 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 Robert Rauter, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Beltinci. He is represented before the Court by Odvetniška Družba Matoz O.P. D.O.O., a lawyer practising in Koper.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) are 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 a sentence in the closed section of Dob Prison since 11 March 2004.
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.
From 11 March 2004 to 13 March 2009 the applicant was held in a cell no 5, Block 4 and after 22 September 2008 Block 2 which measured 59.25 square metres and held sixteen inmates (3.7 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). From 13 March 2009 to 12 June 2009 he was serving his sentence in the closed section of Maribor Prison. Since 12 June 2009 he has been held in the closed section of Dob Prison in a single cell no 41, Block 1 which measured 7.14 square metres.
According to the Government’s submissions dated 22 December 2010 the applicant was hospitalised only on one occasion, on 14 January 2010, and only due to hernia surgery. There is also no note in his personal records about his alleged two suicide attempts. The applicant had an interview with a psychologist on 12 March 2004 and was later treated on at least six occasions, however it was concluded that he was not a suicide risk. From 15 July 2004 to 9 March 2011 the applicant received dental assistance on twenty-four occasions. The applicant also did not file any formal requests to be transferred to another cell or prison. Further, the Government submitted that the applicant had been on several occasions sanctioned for threatening to other prisoners.
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 been frequently threatened by other inmates, however he had not been transferred to another cell. Consequently, his mental health had been seriously impaired, he had made two suicide attempts and had been therefore hospitalised. Further, he complained that he had not received adequate psychological, psychiatric and 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 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 additional allegations, whereas the Government submitted, regarding his complaint that he had not been transferred to another cell, that the applicant had been transferred to a single cell on 12 June 2009 and regarding his complaint about impaired mental health, that the applicant had had at his disposal medical, psychiatric and psychological care. As to the applicant’s complaint regarding his suicide attempts, the Court notes that there has been no note in the applicant’s personal record of any suicide attempts and that the applicant has never been hospitalized for that reason. Also a psychologist concluded that he was not a suicide risk. Further, the applicant did not specify when he had allegedly attempted to commit suicide nor did he dispute or at least comment on the Government’s submissions denying that he had attempted to commit suicide and that he had been hospitalised for that reason. He also did not dispute that he had threatened other prisoners. It follows that these complaints are 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 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 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