FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6948/10
Zdenko STANIVUK
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30 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 Zdenko Stanivuk, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Vipava, Adjovščina. 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 T. Mihelič Žitko.
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 3 February 2005.
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 3 February 2005 to 30 August 2005 the applicant was held in a cell no 5, Block 2 which measured 59.25 square metres and held fourteen inmates (4.23 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). He was later transferred several times. From 30 august 2005 to 11 September 2005 he was held in a single cell no 25, Block 1 which measured 7.16 square metres. From 11 September 2005 to 31 May 2007 and from 4 July 2007 to 4 April 2008 he was held in a cell no 5, Block 2 which measured 59.25 square metres and held sixteen inmates (3.7 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). From 31 May 2007 to 4 July 2007 he was held in a cell no 35 - 38, Block 1 which measured 15.83/17.93 square metres and held four inmates (3.96/4.48 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). From 4 April 2008 to 24 October 2008 he was held in a cell no 31 - 35, Block 1 which measured 32.22/32.39 square metres and held four inmates (8.06/8.09 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). Since 24 October 2008 he has been held in a cell no 5, Block 2 which measured 59.25 square metres and held sixteen inmates (3.7 square metres of personal space available to each inmate).
According to the Government’s submissions dated 21 December 2010 the applicant never complained about being held in a cell in the corridor where other prisoners could smoke. According to a doctor’s report dated 13 August 2010 the applicant received medical assistance on one hundred and six occasions for different medical problems, including asthma, which was diagnosed at the beginning of his imprisonment. According to the Government’s submissions dated 8 June 2011 smoking is prohibited in common premises in prison and every violation is punished, but it is permitted in corridors, where there is ventilation. The cell where the applicant was held was on such corridor, however the applicant never requested a transfer to a non-smoking cell. The applicant also never informed prison authorities about other prisoners smoking in cells.
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 has been sharing a cell with prisoners who have been smokers whereas he has had asthma and that his request for a transfer to another cell had not been granted. He further complained that ventilation system has not been functioning or effective and that prison authorities have not done enough to reduce exposure of non‑smoking prisoners to cigarette smoke. He complained about prisoners smoking in cells without being punished.
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.
The Court notes 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. According to the Government’s submissions smoking was permitted in a prison in corridors with ventilation but not also in shared cells, including the cell where the applicant was held. Even though his cell was on a corridor where smoking is permitted and even though he has had asthma, there was no note in prison files of the applicant requesting a transfer to a cell on a non-smoking corridor, although he could have asked for it. There has also been no note in prison files of the applicant stating when and in which cells prisoners had smoked despite prohibition, nor that he had informed prison authorities about such behaviour and that the latter had failed to take action. The Court therefore concludes that this part of the application has not been properly substantiated and developed by the applicant. Accordingly, it should be rejected as being manifestly ill‑founded, pursuant to 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