Communicated on 28 June 2016
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 21613/16
Dušan ULEMEK against Croatia
and 5 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A list of the applicants is set out in the appendix.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.
1. Ulemek v. Croatia, no. 21613/16
The applicant was detained in inadequate conditions of detention in Zagreb Prison (from 12 May to 7 June 2011) and Lepoglava State Prison (from 8 June 2011 to 28 September 2012).
The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was placed were overcrowded and lacked basic hygiene and sanitary requirements. Throughout his confinement in the two penitentiary facilities he disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space. In Zagreb Prison he was allowed only two hours of outdoor exercise per day. Moreover, the sanitary facility was placed in the cells and was not fully separated from the living space. The cells were not sufficiently furnished and the inmates had to take turns when eating since there were no sufficient chairs for all of them. In Glina State Prison he was harassed and attacked by other inmates and he was therefore separated from them and kept in isolation. This adversely affected his contact rights with his family members. In particular, he was not allowed to visit a sick family member and was not given a possibility of conjugal visit until he married his partner. Although he was in need of urgent dental treatment, it was unjustifiably delayed for more than five months.
In April and May 2012 the applicant complained to a sentence-execution judge of the Sisak County Court (Županijski sud u Sisku) about the inadequate conditions of detention.
On 21 June 2012 his complaint was dismissed as unfounded. The applicant challenged that decision by lodging an appeal before a three-judge panel of the Sisak County Court and his appeal was dismissed on 10 July 2012.
In January 2013, before lodging a civil action against the State concerning the allegedly inadequate conditions of his detention, the applicant attempted to settle the matter with the competent State Attorney’s Office. His request was denied as unfounded.
In June 2013 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State with the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court (Općinski građanski sud u Zagrebu) seeking damages for inadequate conditions of detention.
On 14 October 2014 the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action as unfounded and ordered him to pay costs of the proceedings in the amount of 6,250 Croatian kunas (approximately 820 euros).
The applicant challenged the first-instance judgment by lodging an appeal before the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu), which was dismissed on 5 June 2015 as unfounded.
The applicant then lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske), and on 19 November 2015 it was dismissed it as unfounded.
The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicant’s representative on 4 December 2015.
2. Janković v. Croatia, no. 23244/16
The applicant was detained in inadequate conditions of detention in the following penitentiary facilities: Osijek and Pula Prisons and Lepoglava State Prison (between 1991 and September 2008), Sisak Prison (from 2 September to 9 December 2008), Varaždin Prison (from 10 December 2008 to 5 March 2009), Pula Prison (from 6 to 14 March 2012), Lepoglava State Prison (from 15 March 2012 to March 2015) and Glina State Prison (from March 2015) where he is currently detained.
The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was kept were overcrowded and lacked basic hygiene and sanitary requirements. Throughout his confinement he disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space. Moreover, the nutrition was inadequate and he did not have sufficient recreational, vocational or other out-of-cell activities.
In July 2012 and May 2013 the applicant complained to a sentence-execution judge of the Varaždin County Court (Županijski sud u Varaždinu) about the inadequate conditions of his detention.
On 22 August 2014 the sentence-execution judge dismissed his complaints as unfounded. This decision was confirmed by a three-judge panel of the Varaždin County Court on 10 September 2014.
In July 2012, before lodging a civil action against the State concerning the inadequate conditions of his detention, the applicant attempted to settle the matter with the competent State Attorney’s Office. His request was refused as unfounded.
On 10 December 2012 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State with the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court seeking damages for inadequate conditions of detention.
On 9 March 2016 the applicant informed the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court that he had lodged an application with the Court and asked for the adjournment of the proceedings pending the outcome of the case before the Court.
3. Grgić v. Croatia, no. 26032/16
The applicant was detained in inadequate conditions of detention in the following penitentiary facilities: Lepoglava State Prison (from 13 November 2007 to 4 March 2013), Sisak Prison (from 5 March 2013 to January 2014) and Zagreb Prison (from January 2014 to 2 April 2014, when he was released).
The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was placed were inadequately equipped, overcrowded and lacked basic hygiene and sanitary requirements. Throughout his confinement he disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space. Moreover, the nutrition was inadequate and he did not have sufficient recreational, vocational or other out-of-cell activities. He was also not given adequate medical treatment and was not separated from the smokers. The applicant contends that in Lepoglava State Prison, instead of three visits per month, he has had the right only to two visits per month and his wife was refused access to him five or six times without any justified reason.
In April 2010, and April and October 2011 the applicant complained to a sentence-execution judge of the Varaždin County Court about the inadequate conditions of his detention.
On 21 October 2011 the sentence-execution judge found a violation of his rights related to insufficient personal space in Lepoglava State Prison and ordered prison authorities to remove the applicant from inadequate conditions. She dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s complaints. This decision was confirmed by a three-judge panel of the Varaždin County Court on 16 December 2011. According to the applicant, the prison administration did not comply with the order of the sentence-execution judge.
In February 2012 the applicant again lodged a complaint with the sentence-execution judge of the Varaždin County Court about the inadequate conditions of his detention. His complaint was dismissed on 6 March 2013.
In June 2013, before lodging a civil action against the State concerning the inadequate conditions of his detention, the applicant attempted to settle the matter with the competent State Attorney’s Office. His request was denied as unfounded.
On 18 February 2014 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State with the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court seeking damages for inadequate conditions of detention.
On 8 March 2016 the applicant informed the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court that he had lodged an application with the Court and asked for the adjournment of the proceedings pending the outcome of the case before the Court.
4. Časek v. Croatia, no. 26636/16
The applicant served two sentences of imprisonment. He served the first sentence in inadequate conditions of detention in the following penitentiary facilities: Varaždin Prison (from 6 January to 9 October 2008), Zagreb Prison (from 10 October to 23 December 2008), Glina State Prison (from 24 December 2008 to 4 September 2009, when he was released). The second time he was detained in the following facilities: Varaždin Prison (from 22 February to 5 July 2010), Zagreb Prison (from 6 July to 19 October 2010), Lepoglava State Prison (from 20 October 2010 to 7 March 2011) and Varaždin Prison (8 March 2011 until his release on an unspecified date).
The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was kept were inadequately equipped, overcrowded and lacked basic hygiene and sanitary requirements. Throughout his confinement he disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space. Moreover, the nutrition was inadequate and he did not have sufficient recreational, vocational or other out-of-cell activities. He was also not given adequate medical treatment for his hepatitis infection and for his drug addiction.
In August 2011 the applicant complained to a sentence-execution judge of the Varaždin County Court about the inadequate conditions of his detention.
On 7 September 2011 the sentence-execution judge found a violation of his rights related to insufficient personal space in Varaždin Prison and ordered prison authorities to remove the applicant from inadequate conditions. She dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s complaints. This decision was confirmed by a three-judge panel of the Varaždin County Court on 14 September 2011. According to the applicant, the prison administration did not comply with the order of the sentence-execution judge.
In October 2011 the applicant’s further complaints about the lack of adequate medical treatment were dismissed.
In April 2012, before lodging a civil action against the State concerning the allegedly inadequate conditions of his detention, the applicant attempted to settle the matter with the competent State Attorney’s Office. His request was refused as unfounded.
On 1 October 2012 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State with the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court seeking damages for inadequate conditions of detention.
On 22 March 2016 the applicant informed the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court that he had lodged an application with the Court and asked for the adjournment of the proceedings pending the outcome of the case before the Court.
5. Jurić v. Croatia, no. 28279/16
The applicant was detained in inadequate conditions of detention in Zagreb Prison (from 8 February 2011 to 5 May 2013) and Glina State Prison (from 6 May to 29 November 2013).
The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was kept were overcrowded and lacked basic hygiene and sanitary requirements. Throughout his confinement in Zagreb Prison he disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space and in Glina State Prison he had 3,35 sq. m of personal space. Moreover, he was also not given adequate medical treatment for his gastritis.
In February 2014, before lodging a civil action against the State concerning the allegedly inadequate conditions of his detention, the applicant attempted to settle the matter with the competent State Attorney’s Office. His request was denied as unfounded.
On 23 December 2014 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State with the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court seeking damages for inadequate conditions of detention.
On 8 April 2016 the applicant informed the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court that he had lodged an application with the Court and asked for the adjournment of the proceedings pending the outcome of the case before the Court.
6. Nikolić v. Croatia, no. 29622/16
The applicant was detained in inadequate conditions of detention in Sisak Prison (from 21 January 2011 to 25 July 2013), Zagreb Prison (from 26 July to 12 September 2013) and Sisak Prison (from 13 September 2013 to 19 April 2014, when he was released).
The applicant alleges in particular that the cells in which he was kept were overcrowded and lacked basic hygiene and sanitary requirements. Throughout his confinement in Zagreb Prison he disposed of less than 3 sq. m of personal space and in Sisak Prison he generally had less than 3 sq. m of personal space. Moreover, he did not have sufficient recreational, education or other out-of-cell activities, and the medical treatment was inadequate.
In August 2013 the applicant complained to a sentence-execution judge of the Sisak County Court about the inadequate conditions of detention in Sisak Prison. On 15 November 2013 the sentence-execution judge found a violation of his rights related to adequate personal space and ordered prison authorities to remove the applicant from inadequate conditions. He dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s complaints. According to the applicant, he challenged this decision before a three-judge panel of the Sisak County Court but his appeal was never examined. Moreover, he alleges that the prison administration did not comply with the order of the sentence-execution judge.
In August 2013, before lodging a civil action against the State concerning the allegedly inadequate conditions of his detention, the applicant attempted to settle the matter with the competent State Attorney’s Office. His request was refused as unfounded.
On 18 February 2012 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State with the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court seeking damages for inadequate conditions of detention.
On 8 April 2016 the applicant informed the Zagreb Municipal Civil Court that he had lodged an application with the Court and asked for the adjournment of the proceedings pending the outcome of the case before the Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 3 of the Convention of inadequate conditions of their detention.
The applicant in the case of Ulemek v. Croatia (no. 21613/16) complains, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, of a civil courts’ failure to examine all the relevant aspects of his allegations concerning the inadequate conditions of detention. He also alleges that following the dismissal of his civil action, the domestic courts awarded excessive amount of costs and expenses in favour of the State.
The applicants in the cases Ulemek v. Croatia (no. 21613/16) and Grgić v. Croatia (no. 26032/16) complain, under Article 8 of the Convention, of unjustified and unreasonable restrictions of their right to family visits.
Lastly, the applicants complain, under Article 13 of the Convention, that they did not have an effective domestic remedy for their complaints related to the conditions of their detention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Have the applicants properly exhausted all effective domestic remedies concerning the conditions of detention, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Have the applicants complied with the six-month time-limit concerning their complaints about the conditions of detention, as laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Have the conditions of the applicants’ detention, in particular in view of the size of their cells and the number of inmates placed in the same cell at the material time, or any other condition, related to sanitary and hygiene conditions and nutrition, work opportunities, medical care and access to recreational and educational activities, amounted specifically or cumulatively to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicant in the case of Ulemek v. Croatia (no. 21613/16) have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (1) have the domestic courts examined all the relevant aspects of his allegations concerning the inadequate conditions of detention; and (2) has the alleged excessive award of costs to the State, following the dismissal of his civil action, amounted to a disproportionate restriction of his right of access to court?
5. In the cases Ulemek v. Croatia (no. 21613/16) and Grgić v. Croatia (no. 26032/16) did the authorities put disproportionate restrictions on the applicants’ contacts with their families during their detention?
6. Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their Convention complaints under Articles 3 and 8, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
The Government are required to provide detailed information about the conditions in which the applicants has been detained, including their exhaustion of domestic remedies, and all the relevant documents in that respect.
Appendix
No
Application No
Lodged on
Applicant
Date of birth
Represented by
21613/16
15/04/2016
Dušan ULEMEK
17/05/1982
Lidija HORVAT
23244/16
20/04/2016
Mijo JANKOVIĆ
28/09/1969
Lidija HORVAT
26032/16
03/05/2016
Marko GRGIĆ
05/01/1962
Lidija HORVAT
26636/16
06/05/2016
Ivan ČASEK
27/07/1982
Lidija HORVAT
28279/16
16/05/2016
Jozo JURIČ
13/10/1978
Lidija HORVAT
29622/16
23/05/2016
Nedjeljko NIKOLIĆ
03/08/1975
Lidija HORVAT
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy