CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 juin 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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .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 }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 6684/10 Danilo POHOREC against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 June 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 application lodged on 18 December 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Danilo Pohorec, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Maribor. He is represented before the Court by Odvetniška Družba Matoz O.P. D.O.O., a law firm practising in Koper. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs T Mihelič Žitko, 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 serving his sentence in the closed section of Dob Prison from 7 June 2008 until 7 June 2010. As regards the facilities available to the applicant in the cells and common areas, as well as the health care regime in the prison, the conditions imposed on the applicant regarding activities outside the cells and contact with the outside world in general, 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 applicant was held in cell no 1, Block 3 which measured 59.89   square metres and held fifteen inmates (3.99   square metres of personal space available to each inmate). During the serving of his sentence the applicant was on twenty-two occasions treated for different health problems in the prison clinic. Between June 2008 and September 2009 the applicant had nine sessions with a psychiatrist. He was prescribed antidepressants and other drugs. According to the report by the prison administration dated 9 August 2010, the applicant did not seek additional support from the prison psychologist. On 1 July 2008 and 3 September 2009 he was examined by a pulmonologist. On 5   November 2009 the applicant had eye examination. In the observations dated 23   December 2010 the Government disputed the applicant’s allegations that he had been, due to his mental condition, four times hospitalised. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice For the relevant domestic law and practice, see paragraphs 33-35 and 38-47 of the Court’s judgment in the case of Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia (nos.   5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, 27   September 2011), and paragraphs 34-36 of Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia (nos.   5774/10 and 5985/10, 27   September 2011), Lalić and Others , cited above, as well as Mešić   v.   Slovenia (no. 5767/10, 22 November 2011) and Ferenc v. Slovenia (no. 6682/10, 13 March 2012). COMPLAINTS The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Dob Prison amounted to a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In particular, he 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. He further submitted that the situation amounted to a structural problem, which had been acknowledged by the domestic authorities. In addition, the applicant complained that he had not received adequate medical treatment, especially in connection with his mental distress while in prison. Citing Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicant also complained of restrictions on visits, telephone conversations and correspondence. The applicant lastly complained, under Article 13, that he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. THE LAW The Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government’s objections concerning the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies and compliance with the six-month rule, as the application should in any event be declared inadmissible for the reasons set out below. As regards the applicant’s complaint that he had not received adequate medical assistance regarding his mental distress, the Court recalls that Article 3 imposes an obligation on the States to ensure that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, §   94, ECHR 2000-XI). The Court would further note that information relating to detention often falls within the knowledge of the domestic authorities. Accordingly, applicants might experience certain difficulties in procuring evidence to substantiate a complaint in that connection. Still, in such cases applicants may well be expected to submit at least a detailed account of the facts complained of and to provide – to the greatest possible extent – some evidence in support of their complaints (see, mutatis mutandis , Visloguzov v. Ukraine , no. 32362/02, § 45, 20 May 2010; Mešić v. Slovenia , cited above; and Ferenc v. Slovenia , cited above). Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant provided no evidence or details as regards his allegations and also did not dispute the Government’s submissions on adequacy of his treatment, including the submissions that he had visited the doctor on twenty-two occasions and that he had nine sessions with the psychiatrist, as well as that he had not sought additional support from the prison psychologist and that he had not been hospitalised, as he had himself alleged. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. As regards the remainder of the applicant’s complaints on general conditions of detention in the closed section of Dob Prison, the Court notes that these 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 applicant’s 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 application, including the fact that the present applicant always had sufficient personal space in the cell in which he was detained. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Stephen Phillips   Ann Power-Forde   Deputy Registrar   President