CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 avril 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAA06C68 { width:13.67pt; display:inline-block } .s3480A186 { width:173.6pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sE3D66594 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; border-collapse:collapse } .sEC1E756B { height:55.75pt } .s1987CF12 { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s5F05A7BD { border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s38798ED7 { border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle; background-color:#a0a0a0 } .s59A5D7A { height:25.55pt } .s88A4DB4E { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s8A22409F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sDD8F0D07 { border-style:solid; border-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s6A269875 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; border-bottom-style:solid; border-bottom-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s7BE5FA7B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .sF844B0A7 { height:15.15pt } .sC465E8B1 { height:42.3pt } .sF2CE8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s11BEB50D { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .sEAD70FA9 { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-right-style:solid; border-right-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s241BF43A { border-top-style:solid; border-top-width:0.75pt; border-left-style:solid; border-left-width:0.75pt; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:middle }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 6918/10 Romo BISLIMI against Slovenia and 9 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 April 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 applications lodged on the dates indicated in the attached table, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants Mr Ramo Bislimi, Mr Dušan Skobir, Mr Dejan Jović, Mr   Branko Grant, Mr Anton Gorenjec, Mr Roman Čmak, Mr Stephen Casiraghi, Mr Marjan Koser, Mr Damjan Vilčnik and Mr Samir Sejfović are Slovenian nationals. Their birthdates are indicated in the attached table. They were represented before the Court by Odvetniška Družba Matoz o.p. d.o.o., a law firm practicing in Koper. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs T. Mihelič Žitko, State Attorney.   The applicants served, or are currently serving, sentences in the closed section of Dob Prison. As regards the facilities available to the applicants in the cells and common areas, as well as the health care regime in the prison, the conditions imposed on the applicants regarding activities outside the cells and contact with the outside world, 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. The individual circumstances, such as period of imprisonment, personal space allocated to the each applicant and their activities outside the cells, are indicated in the attached table. COMPLAINTS The applicants complained that the conditions of their detention in Dob Prison amounted to a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In particular, they 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. They further submitted that the situation amounted to a structural problem, which had been acknowledged by the domestic authorities. Invoking Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants also complained of restrictions on visits, telephone conversations and correspondence. The applicants lastly complained, under Article 13, that they did not have any effective remedy at their disposal as regards their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. THE LAW As the applications are similar in terms of both fact and law, the Court decides to join them. The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints are identical to those of the applicants in the case of Lalić and Others (cited above). In that case the Court has 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 has accordingly also rejected the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, as no arguable claim for the purpose of the aforementioned provision could have been established. The Court takes note of the similar factual background of the aforementioned case and the present applications, including the fact that the present applicants always had sufficient personal space in the cells in which they were detained. Therefore, the present applications should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§   3 (a) and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously   Decides to join the applications;   Declares the applications inadmissible.   Stephen Phillips   Ann Power-Forde   Deputy Registrar   President   No Application No Applicant’s name and date of birth Lodged on Period of imprisonment Cell size/occupancy level (personal space) Out-of-cell activities 1. 6918/10 Ramo BISLIMI 16/03/1950 18/12/2009 Since 04/04/2007   59,57 m²/17 (3,5 m²)     Since 10/09/2007 he has been working in the Pohorje Public Institute. 2. 6922/10 Dušan SKOBIR 15/01/1969 18/12/2009 From 16/09/2005 to 16/08/2010 59,25 m²/15 (3,95 m²) 20,89 m²/4 (5,22 m²) 15,83 m² - 17,93 m²/4 (3,96 m² - 4,48 m²) 59,25 m²/16 (3,70 m²) From 12/12/2005 to 06/11/2009 he worked in the kitchen of Dob prison. 3. 6927/10 Dejan JOVIĆ 17/03/1978 18/12/2009 Since 31/12/2008 59,89 m²/14 (4,28 m²) 36,26 m²/2 (18,13 m²) From 17/11/2009 to 31/12/2009 he worked in the Pohorje Public Institute.   Since 14/06/2010 he has been working in the kitchen of Dob prison.   He has been included in the education programme, including food-preparation and catering classes.   4. 6934/10 Branko GRANT 22/08/1951   18/12/2009 Since 04/02/2008 59,89 m²/16 (3,74 m²) 14,19 m²/3 (4,73 m²)   Since 28/06/2010 he has been working in the Pohorje Public Institute 5. 6952/10 Anton GORENJEC 13/01/1967 18/12/2009 From 29/06/2007 to 029/03/2010 58,94m²/17 (3,47m²)   From 14/01/2008 to 29/03/2010 he worked in the Pohorje Public Institute. 6. 6954/10 Roman ČMAK 14/03/1965 18/12/2009 Since 11/07/2007 59,25 m²/16 (3,70 m²) 16,47 m²/3 (5,49 m²) 13,99 m²/3 (4,66 m²) From 12/05/2008 to 20/03/2009 he worked in the Pohorje Public Institute. 7. 6961/10 Stephen CASIRAGHI 31/05/1968 18/12/2009 Since 17/04/2008 59,25 m²/16 (3,70 m²) 7,39 m²/1 (7,39 m²) / 8. 6964/10 Marjan KOSER 20/11/1961   18/12/2009 Since 18/05/2007 58,94m²/17 (3,47m²)   Since 10/09/2007 he has been working in the Pohorje Public Institute. 9. 6971/10 Damjan VILČNIK 29/05/1980   18/12/2009 From 16/06/2005 to 01/03/2010 7,14 m²/1 (7,14 m²) 15,83 m² - 17,96 m²/4 (3,96 m² - 4,49 m²) 32,22 m² - 32,39 m²/4 (8,06 m² - 8,09 m²) 59,57 m²/17 (3,50 m²)   He participated in a job search training. 10. 6974/10 Samir SEJFOVIĆ 03/08/1976   18/12/2009 Since 31/05/2005 59,25 m²/14 (4,23 m²) 20,67 m²/4 (5,17 m²) 17,96 m²/4 (4,49 m²) 59,25 m²/16 (3,70 m²) 32,39 m²/3 (10,79 m²) 59,89 m²/14 (4,28 m²) 7,14 m²/1 (7,14 m²) 59,89m²/15 (3,99m²) He has been working in the Pohorje Public Institute.