FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24998/12
Zlatan VELEGIĆ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 October 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Angelika Nußberger, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 April 2012,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Zlatan Velegić, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Ljubljana. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Ahlin, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Andreja Vran, 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 was held in the remand section and the closed section of Ljubljana prison, from 7 December 2008 to 21 June 2010 and from 24 March 2011 to 26 April 2012.
The Government noted that the applicant had lodged a claim for compensation before domestic courts for inadequate prison conditions.
According to their latest observations, dated 10 October 2013, these proceedings were still pending.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
For the relevant domestic law and practice see Bizjak v. Slovenia (dec.), no. 25516/12, 8 July 2014, §§ 6-11.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complained that he had not had at his disposal any effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3.
Lastly, under Article 14 of the Convention the applicant complained of discrimination between prisoners with different financial situations. As the prices in a prison shop were higher than in the general marketplace, some prisoners could buy fewer goods than others.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading. He invoked Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had suffered from severe overcrowding, inadequate ventilation during the summer and excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time.
The Government, relying on the same arguments as in the case of Bizjak (cited above, §§ 17-22), pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They argued that the applicant had an effective remedy at his disposal, namely a claim for compensation under Article 179 of the Civil Code. Further, the applicant had lodged such a claim before domestic courts regarding the allegedly inadequate prison conditions and that those proceedings were still pending.
The applicant maintained that a claim for compensation could not be considered effective. He alleged that the domestic proceedings had been lengthy and that the amount of compensation awarded by domestic courts is low (with the judgment of 9 May 2011 the domestic courts awarded only EUR 2,290).
As regards the relevant principles on the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court refers to paragraphs 24‑26 of its decision in the case of Bizjak, where it has already assessed the effectiveness of a claim for compensation in respect of allegedly inadequate conditions of detention. In Bizjak, the applicant had already been released from Ljubljana prison at the time of lodging his application to the Court.
The Court concluded that the remedy at issue should in principle be used by a person in the applicant’s situation who intended to claim that his or her prison conditions were incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Bizjak, cited above, § 34).
The Court sees no reason to depart from the findings in the case of Bizjak as regards the effectiveness of the remedy in question.
As regards the applicant’s objections as to the ineffectiveness of the remedy, namely the length of domestic compensation proceedings and the amount of compensation awarded at domestic level, they are based on the same arguments as adduced by the applicant in Bizjak (cited above, § 23). Those allegations were not accepted in Bizjak (cited above, §§ 35-44) and the Court sees no reasons that would lead it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
When lodging the application to the Court the applicant in the present case was still in Ljubljana prison; however he was released already few days later. Therefore, in those circumstances only the remedy of a purely compensatory nature could be effective.
Having regard to the fact that the applicant lodged a claim for compensation, which the Court has held to be effective, and that according to the latest observations submitted by the Government (dated 10 October 2013) these proceedings are still pending, the Court considers that the applicant’s complaints under Articles 3, 13 and 14 of the Convention are inadmissible as being premature and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Stephen PhillipsAngelika Nußberger
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy