FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5816/10
Niko SOTNER
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 15 January 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Niko Sotner, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Slovenska Bistrica. He was represented before the Court by Odvetniška Družba Matoz, O.P. D.O.O., a law firm practising in Koper.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Klemenc, 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 his sentence in the closed section of Dob Prison from 3 July 2009.
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.
Until 10 March 2010 the applicant was held in 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). Afterwards he was moved to cell no 8, Block 4 which measures 58.94 square metres and holds seventeen inmates (3.47 square metres of personal space available to each inmate).
Between July 2009 and June 2011 the applicant was on fifty-eight occasions treated for different health problems in the prison clinic, mainly with regard to his back pain. He has also been undergoing a substitution therapy. According to the report by the prison clinic dated 10 June 2011, the applicant on two occasions refused to be examined by a specialist in connection with back pain. On 18 December 2009 he refused to see a surgeon and on 27 December 2008 he refused to undergo an x-ray of the spine. In addition to the treatment by the general practitioner, the applicant also had twenty sessions with a psychiatrist.
In their observations dated 16 June 2011 the respondent Government contested the allegations of the applicant concerning the risk of spreading Hepatitis C on the basis of the allegedly poor hygiene conditions, a high percentage of convicts who abused drugs, and having to share the room with convicts who were diagnosed with Hepatitis C. The Government recalled that 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. Furthermore, the Government also highlighted that according to Section 88 of the Enforcement of Criminal Sanctions Act possession of drug paraphernalia constituted a serious disciplinary offence and that the prison authorities were taking appropriate measures in order to prevent smuggling and possession of drugs and injective paraphernalia in prison, including inspections of rooms, personal searches, inspection of luggage, postal items and visitors.
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 his submissions of 18 May 2011 the applicant also claimed that that he was under a high risk of being infected with Hepatitis C due to poor hygiene conditions, the high percentage of convicts who abused drugs and the fact that convicts who were diagnosed with hepatitis C were not isolated from other convicts. He further submitted that he had not received adequate medical assistance.
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, compliance with the six-month rule and victim status, as the application is in any event inadmissible for the reasons set out below.
As regards the applicant’s complaint that he had not received adequate medical treatment and his allegations concerning the risk of contracting hepatitis C, 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 of inadequacy of health care, whereas the Government submitted that between July 2008 and June 2011 the applicant had visited the doctor on fifty-eight occasions, that he had twenty sessions with the psychiatrist, as well as that he had refused two appointment with specialists. 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. It follows that this complaint is 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 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 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