CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 mars 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC9D6F765 { width:209.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 19615/03 by Roberts ŽEREBKOVS against Latvia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22   March 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Ján Šikuta, President,   Ineta Ziemele,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 June 2003, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 27 July 2010 requesting the Court to strike the applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having regard to the respondent Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaint about his alleged inability to complain to courts about the change in his imprisonment regime and the applicant’s reply to those observations, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Roberts Žerebkovs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1970 and is currently serving a prison sentence in Daugavpils. He was represented before the Court by Ms A. Medne, a lawyer practising in Rīga. The Latvian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Reine. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. A.     Disciplinary penalties and the change of the imprisonment regime 3.     At the relevant time the applicant was imprisoned in Jēkabpils Prison. On 4 May 2003 his cell was searched. He complained about the conduct of the search to the director of the prison. On the following day the director decided to place the applicant in a disciplinary cell ( soda izolators ) for seven days because he had not obeyed the commands of the prison staff during the search. 4.     Before the transfer to the disciplinary cell, the applicant requested a fellow prisoner to forward his complaint about the conduct of the search to the Prison Administration of Latvia ( Ieslodzījuma vietu pārvalde ). It appears that the complaint was sent by illegal ways – circumventing the prison censorship. For this offence the applicant was placed in the disciplinary cell for ten days on 27 May 2003. 5.     On 20 May 2003 the Prison Administration replied to the applicant’s complaint and held that his first placement in the disciplinary cell had been well-founded and legal because the applicant had failed to obey requests of the prison staff, which is a disciplinary violation. 6.     On 4 June 2003 the Prison Administration sent another letter, in which it refused to reply to another complaint by the applicant, which was virtually identical to the one that had been replied to before. The applicant received this letter thirteen days after it had been received by the administration of the Jēkabpils Prison. 7.     Taking into account the applicant’s disciplinary violations, on 5 June 2003 it was decided to transfer him from the medium imprisonment regime to the lowest one (the most restrictive). On 9 June 2003 the applicant addressed a complaint about the change of his imprisonment regime to “the court bailiff of Jēkabpils who supervises the administrative decisions of the Jēkabpils Prison”. A judge of the Jēkabpils District Court returned that complaint two days later, indicating that the institution mentioned by the applicant did not exist, and explaining the proper way of complaining about decisions of the prison administration. According to the applicant, the administration of Jēkabpils Prison gave him that letter five days after it had been received in the prison, thus on 16 June 2003. 8.     On 17 June 2003 the applicant submitted another complaint, which this time was properly addressed to “the Jēkabpils District Court”. He complained about disciplinary penalties imposed on him and in particular about the change of the imprisonment regime. The applicant further explained that he had received the previous response of the court only on 16   June 2003, which was the reason why the repeated complaint was being submitted on 17   June 2003. He did not explicitly request that the time-limit for appealing against the decision on the imprisonment regime change be renewed. 9.     On 30 June 2003 the Jēkabpils District Court decided to refuse to accept the applicant’s complaint. It was noted that the applicant had mailed his complaint on 17 June 2003, which was after the expiry of the time-limit for appealing against the decision of 5 June 2003, and had not requested a renewal of that time-limit. B.     Conditions of detention and related complaints 10.     On 6 June 2003 the applicant was released from the disciplinary cell and immediately transferred to a different cell (no. 21) than the one he had been held in before. He alleges that for three days after his transfer he did not receive his personal belongings from his previous cell. 11.     With regard to the conditions in cell no. 21 the applicant alleged that no hot water was available; that the toilet facilities were not separated from the rest of the cell; that there was virtually no fresh air, since the ventilation system was not functional and the window (of a size of 30   cm by 60   cm) was covered with a fine metal mesh; that no soap or washing powder were provided; that the walls were dilapidated and the ceiling was crumbling; and that no TV, radio or newspapers were available. 12.     On an unspecified date, a prosecutor of the Specialised Public Prosecutor’s Office ( Specializētā vairāku nozaru prokuratūra ) provided a reply to the applicant’s complaints to that office dated 25 June and 16 July 2003 and to the Prosecutor General’s Office ( Ģenerālprokuratūra ) dated 27   May and 10 June 2003. The response confirmed the legality of the applicant’s disciplinary punishments and explained that the delay in handing to the applicant the letter from the Jēkabpils District Court had been caused by public holidays. The letter explained that the findings could be appealed by submitting a complaint to a hierarchically superior prosecutor of the same office. The applicant submitted such a complaint on 18 August 2003. In it he summarily complained also about the conditions of detention in cell   no.   21. In the response of 17 September 2003, which could again be appealed to a hierarchically superior prosecutor, the applicant’s appeal was dismissed. The complaint concerning the conditions of detention was not specifically addressed by the prosecutor providing an answer. In his appeal of 26 September 2003 the applicant complained that his concerns had been ignored and repeated his allegations concerning the conditions in the cell   no.   21. There is no information as to whether any answer was provided. 13.     On 25 July 2003 the applicant was transferred to another prison. 14.     On 4 August 2003 the applicant submitted an application to the director of Jēkabpils Prison, in which he inter alia complained about the conditions of detention in cell no.   21. On 13 August 2003 the director replied by stating that the living conditions of the inmates of Jēkabpils Prison depended on the available financing. 15.     On the same date the applicant also submitted complaints to the Prison Administration and to the Prosecutor General’s Office. In the former he in substance disputed the disciplinary penalties imposed on him, while in the latter he also complained about the conditions in the cell no.   21. There is no information as to whether any answer was received from the Prosecutor General’s Office, but the Prison Administration on 15 September 2003 replied that the disciplinary penalties had been imposed in accordance with the law. COMPLAINTS 16.     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of detention in the cell no.   21 in Jēkabpils prison. Under the same Article he complained about his placement in a disciplinary cell without taking into account his unspecified health condition. 17.     Under Article 8 the applicant complained about an infringement of his freedom of correspondence caused by Jēkabpils prison administration’s failure to hand over the letters addressed to him in a reasonable time. 18.     The applicant complained under Article 13 about the disciplinary penalty imposed on him for sending a letter illegally; about the fact that as a result of delays of his correspondence he was unable to complain about the change in his imprisonment regime; and about the fact that his complaint about the same was not accepted by the Jēkabpils District Court. 19.     The applicant submitted that Article 14 of the Convention had been violated because the administration of Jēkabpils prison persecuted him because of his complaints to other authorities. 20.     Under Article 17 the applicant complained that the administration of Jēkabpils prison was abusing its powers in various ways. 21.     Lastly the applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the three-day delay in transferring his personal belongings to the cell   no.   21. THE LAW A.     Alleged violation of Article 3 of the Convention 22.     The applicant complained about the conditions of detention in the cell no.   21 in Jēkapbils prison. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention which provides as follows: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” 23.     By letter dated 27 July 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a declaration with a view to resolving the above-mentioned issue. They further requested the Court to strike out the respective part of the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. 24.     The declaration provided as follows: “The Government of the Republic of Latvia (hereinafter – the Government) represented by their Agent Inga Reine admit that the imprisonment conditions in the Jēkabpils prison in respect of Roberts Žerebkovs (hereinafter – the applicant) did not meet the standards enshrined in Article 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter – the Convention). Being aware of that, the Government undertake to adopt all necessary measures in order to avoid similar infringements in future. The Government hereby declare that they offer to pay to the applicant compensation in the amount of 4,500 euro, this amount being the global sum and covering any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage together with any costs and expenses incurred, free of any taxes that may be applicable, with a view to terminate the proceedings pending before the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter – the Court) in the case Žerebkovs v. Latvia (application no.   19615/03). The Government undertake to pay the above compensation within three months from the date of delivery of the decision/judgment by the Court pursuant to Article   37 of the Convention. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on the amount, as established in the decision/judgment by the Court. The above sum shall be transferred to the bank account indicated by the applicant. This payment will constitute the final resolution with respect to the present applicant’s complaint.” 25.     In a letter of 29 October 2010 the applicant’s representative expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was adequate and therefore consented to the respective part of the application being struck out. 26.     The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37   §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. 27.     Taking into account that both parties are in agreement that the part of the application that pertains to the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of detention in the cell no.   21 in Jēkapbils prison can be struck out of the Court’s list of cases, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)). Moreover, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). B.     Alleged violation of Article 13 of the Convention 28.     The applicant complained under Article 13 about the fact that as a result of delays of his correspondence he was unable to complain about the change in his imprisonment regime and about the fact that his complaint about the same was not accepted by the Jēkabpils District Court. These complaints were communicated to the Government under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. 29.     The Government submitted observations on the admissibility and merits of those complaints. Upon receiving the observations of the Government, the applicant’s representative informed the Court that in the light of the arguments advanced by the Government the applicant had chosen not to pursue his above-mentioned complaints. 30.     Taking into account the applicant’s clearly expressed wish to withdraw the respective complaints, the Court considers that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue this part of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. C.     Other alleged violations 31.     The applicant furthermore submitted numerous other complaints under Articles 3, 8, 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No.   1. 32.     However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols. 33.     It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the complaint concerning the conditions of detention in the cell no.   21 in Jēkabpils prison out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Decides to strike the complaints concerning the applicant’s alleged inability to complain to a court about the change of his imprisonment regime out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Marialena Tsirli   Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar   President