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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8578A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:11.6pt } .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 } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; 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 }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 38457/13 Fikret MEHMEDAGIĆ 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 Darjan Prošič, Mr Gregor Podgoršek, Mr Branko Marković, Mr Bojan Bukurov and Mr Zedin Jelačević are Slovenian nationals. The applicant Mr Fikret Mehmedagić is a Bosnian national. Their birthdates are indicated in the attached table. The applicants Mr Prošič, Mr   Podgoršek, Mr Marković, Mr Bukurov and Mr Jelačević were represented before the Court by Mrs Darja Roblek, a lawyer practising in Kranj. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mrs Andreja Vran and Nataša Pintar Gosenca, State Attorneys. 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 were no longer in detention in Ljubljana prison as they had been transferred to Dob prison. 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 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 as the domestic proceedings would have been lengthy. 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 as from 8 July 2014 the remedy at issue should in principle be used by a person in the applicants’ 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. Furthermore, the applicants’ objection as to the ineffectiveness of the remedy regarding the length of domestic compensation proceedings is 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, §§   35-36) nor were the allegations regarding the amount of compensation awarded at domestic level (see Bizjak , cited above, §§ 37-44) 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   38457/13 06/06/2013 Fikret MEHMEDAGIĆ 14/06/1977 Dob   From 13/05/2012 to 25/01/2013   41600/13 22/06/2013 Darjan PROŠIČ 22/02/1989 Dob   From 05/10/2012 to 16/04/2013   42804/13 18/06/2013 Gregor PODGORŠEK 10/08/1976 Dob   From 10/08/2012 to 24/12/2012   50313/13 29/07/2013 Branko MARKOVIĆ 05/05/1980 Dob   From 25/02/2013 to 19/07/2013   50319/13 29/07/2013 Bojan BUKUROV 31/12/1977 Dob   From 06/03/2013 to 19/07/2013   50336/13 29/07/2013 Zedin JELAČEVIĆ 09/09/1985 Dob   From 05/10/2012 to 17/04/2013