Published on 22 June 2026
THIRD SECTION
Applications nos. 54693/21 and 36195/25
Dragutin VIDOSAVLJEVIĆ against Serbia
lodged on 20 July 2021 and 7 November 2025 respectively
communicated on 4 June 2026
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the conditions of the applicant’s transfers to medical facilities outside the prison, as well as the allegedly inadequate conditions of his detention. They also concern an alleged lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of those complaints.
In 2015 he was, on three separate occasions, transferred to civilian medical facilities. Each time he was escorted by armed police officers and transported while handcuffed, shackled, and wearing a distinct prison uniform. During one of the medical procedures he remained restrained.
The applicant’s complaints to the prison governor concerning those events were dismissed as unfounded. His criminal complaints alleging ill-treatment on the part of several officials and employees of the Ministry of Justice and the Belgrade Penitentiary in connection with those events were likewise rejected.
In 2017 the applicant lodged two constitutional appeals relating to those events and to the allegedly poor detention conditions in Belgrade Penitentiary (Kazneno‑popravni zavod u Beogradu), where he had been held for a period of two years and two months. He complained, in particular, of restricted access to out‑of‑cell activities, including time in the open air, and limited opportunities for social interaction. On 21 January 2021 the Constitutional Court dismissed his first appeal as unfounded. The proceedings concerning the second appeal are still ongoing.
Relying on Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complains about the conditions of his transfers to medical facilities and prison conditions in Belgrade Penitentiary. He further complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, that he did not have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy in respect of the grievances raised in his second constitutional appeal, in view of the Constitutional Court’s failure to determine that appeal to date.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment during his visits to medical facilities outside of prison, in breach of Article 3 and/or of Article 8 of the Convention (see A.T. v. Estonia, no. 23183/15, § 54 and 55, 13 November 2018, and the authorities cited therein)? In particular:
(a) Was the handcuffing and the shackling of the applicant necessary having regard to the risk of absconding, causing injury or damage, and in view of his health condition and age? Did those measures have any adverse consequences for his health?
(b) Was the applicant handcuffed and shackled during medical examinations and interventions and, if so, was he under the supervision of the prison officers escorting him, and for what duration?
(c) Was the applicant exposed to the public while wearing restraints and prison clothing and, if so, for how long? Did the escorting officers carry their firearms in a particularly demonstrative manner (compare Giszczak v. Poland, no. 40195/08, §§ 36-41, 29 November 2011)?
(d) Was there a possibility for the applicant to request permission to wear his own clothing during medical visits and, if so, did he make such a request and what decision was taken by the authorities in that regard?
3. Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention in Belgrade Penitentiary, in particular the alleged lack of access to out‑of‑cell activities, including time in the open air, and the limited opportunities for social interaction, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?
4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Volodya Avetisyan v. Armenia, no. 39087/15, § 29, 3 May 2022)? Can the constitutional appeal be considered effective in the circumstances of the applicant’s case, having regard to the duration of constitutional proceedings instated by the applicant’s second constitutional appeal?