FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6690/10
Edin TIRIĆ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 2 October 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 application lodged on 18 December 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Edin Tirić, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Novo mesto. 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, Mr L. Bembič.
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 9 April 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.
Between 15 April 2009 and 26 September 2009 the applicant was held in a cell no 4, Block 3 which measured 59.89 square metres and held fourteen inmates (4.28 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). He was later transferred two times. From 26 September 2009 to 6 October 2009 he was held in a cell no 32, Block 1 which measured 32.39 square metres and held two inmates (16.19 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). Since 6 October 2009 he has been held in cell no 6, Block 3 which measured 59.25 square metres and held fifteen inmates (3.95 square metres of personal space available to each inmate).
According to the Government’s submissions dated 20 December 2010 there is no note in prison documents about the applicant receiving correspondence which was already opened or about prison ever prohibiting him his correspondence. The applicant has also never complained about receiving a damaged postal item. Generally, prisoners may freely correspond with their immediate family members and with others, subject to the prior permission by the prison governor. The law provides for the secrecy of postal letter items and the reading of the contents of postal items is prohibited. The possible opening of letters for supervision purposes is carried out in the presence of the prisoner. As the receiving and sending of the postal items in prison imposes a security burden on the prison authorities, special arrangements have to be put in place, including the requirement of indicating the names of the prisoners’ correspondents. Such a limitation is compatible with the law and pursues a legitimate aim, namely, the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons.
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 on many occasions he was forbidden, without any justification, from sending and receiving post and that on many occasions he discovered that his correspondence had been opened before he received it.
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 whereas the Government submitted there has been no note in prison documents about the applicant receiving correspondence which had already been opened or about prison ever prohibiting him his correspondence. Further, they submitted that the applicant has also never complained about receiving a damaged postal item. The applicant did not dispute or at least comment on these submissions. Moreover, he never specified as to when he had allegedly been obstructed in his correspondence and when he had allegedly received post which had already been opened. 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