CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 octobre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sCDF1E38D { width:180.93pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s8F670191 { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; list-style-position:inside } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 1219/13 Jakob REMŠKAR against Slovenia and 5 other applications (see list appended) 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 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 Jakob Remškar, Mr Blaž Ereiz and Mr Marko Bublič are Slovenian nationals. The applicants Mr Slaviša Jocić and Mr Nenad Jovanović are Serbian nationals. The applicant Mr Jory Patrick Tousijn is a Dutch national. Their birthdates are indicated in the attached table. Mr Jory Patrick Tousijn was represented before the Court by Mr Zoran Korenčan, 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 applicants were detained in the remand section of Ljubljana prison. At the time of lodging their applications to the Court they had not been in detention in Ljubljana prison any longer. They had already been either at liberty either transferred to another prison (Dob or Maribor prison), however they complained solely about the conditions in the remand section of Ljubljana prison. The individual circumstances are indicated in the attached table. 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 applicants complained that the conditions of their detention in the remand section of Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention. Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicants complained that they had not had at their disposal any effective domestic remedy for their complaints under Article 3. THE LAW As the applications are similar in terms of both fact and law, the Court decides to join them. A.     Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention The applicants complained that the conditions of their detention had been inhuman and degrading. They 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 applicants alleged, in particular, that they had suffered from severe overcrowding, inadequate ventilation during the summer and excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time. The applicant Mr Remškar also complained that the diet he had received had not been the proper diet for his medical condition (removed gall bladder). The applicant Mr Tousijn also complained about alleged violence inflicted by other detainees, who physically attacked him several times due to allegations that he was a child molester and about prison authorities not reacting to those incidents and protecting him. 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 applicants had an effective remedy at their disposal, a claim for compensation under Article 179 of the Civil Code, which they had failed to use. The applicants maintained that a claim for compensation could not be considered effective. They alleged that the domestic proceedings had been lengthy, that the amount of compensation awarded by domestic courts is low (with the judgment of 9 May 2011 domestic courts awarded only EUR   2,290) and that there is only one domestic judgment awarding compensation for inadequate conditions of detention. 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 concludes that the remedy at issue should in principle be used as from 8 July 2014 by a person in the applicant’s situation who intends to claim that his or her prison conditions were incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Bizjak , cited above, § 34). The factual background in the present case is similar to the one in the case of Bizjak . At the time of lodging of their applications to the Court the applicants in the present case were no longer detained in Ljubljana prison. They had already been either at liberty either transferred to other prisons; amongst others to Dob prison for which the Court found that the conditions there were not incompatible with the Convention (see 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). In any event, the applicants complained merely about the conditions of detention in Ljubljana prison. Furthermore, the applicants’ objections as to the ineffectiveness of the remedy, namely the length of domestic compensation proceedings, the amount of compensation awarded at domestic level and the existence of only one judgment awarding compensation, are based on the same arguments as those 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. As the situation of the applicants in the present case is similar to the one of the applicant in the case of Bizjak and as the Court sees no reason to depart from the findings in that case, it concludes, as in Bizjak , that the applicants were obliged, under Article 35 of the Convention, to pursue the remedy under Article 179 of the Civil Code, which they have not done. Therefore, this complaint must be rejected under Article   35   §§   1   and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. B.Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention The applicants complained that they did not have any effective remedy at their disposal as regards the conditions of their detention. They relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows: “Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.” As in Bizjak (cited above, § 48), the Court concludes that, even assuming that Article 13 is applicable, it has already found that a claim for compensation under Article 179 of the Civil Code would have provided the applicants with a potentially effective remedy for their complaints under Article 3 of the Convention and that that finding is valid also in the context of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with 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   Angelika Nußberger Deputy Registrar   President   Appendix No Application No Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Period of detention   1219/13 27/12/2012 Jakob REMŠKAR 02/02/1970 Domžale   From 27/05/2010 to 06/11/2012   28411/13 17/03/2013 Jory Patrick TOUSIJN 08/12/1975 Amsterdam   From 17/07/2012 to 16/11/2012   30498/13 30/04/2013 Blaž EREIZ 15/02/1986 Mirna   From 24/06/2011 to 04/12/2012   33834/13 21/05/2013 Marko BUBLIČ 08/04/1983 Dob   From 27/05/2010 to 20/11/2012   From 23/11/2012 to 24/12/2013   35560/13 25/05/2013 Slaviša JOCIĆ 20/12/1986 Dob   From 12/10/2012 to 05/03/2013   35569/13 25/05/2013 Nenad JOVANOVIĆ 13/03/1984 Dob   From 12/10/2012 to 05/03/2013