CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 mai 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8031FF69 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E304268 { width:190.42pt; display:inline-block } .sAE540E25 { width:21.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7DB8BC41 { width:183.09pt; 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 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 16711/14 Bojan KOSEDNAR against Slovenia and 3 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 12 May 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Milan Blaško, 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 Bojan Kosednar, Mr Nejad Majetić, Mr Robert Maksič and Mr Dušan Jovović, are Slovenian nationals. Their particulars appear in the appendix. The applicants 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 Nataša Pintar Gosenca and Mrs Andreja Vran, 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. The individual circumstances are indicated in the attached table. They submitted that during their detention they had suffered from severe overcrowding, inadequate ventilation during the summer and excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time. 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 Given that the present applications concern a similar subject-matter, the Court decides to join them (Rule 42   §   1 of the Rules of Court). 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 Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They relied on the case of Bizjak v.   Slovenia (cited above) when arguing that a claim for compensation under Article 179 of the Civil Code is an effective remedy in cases as the present ones, where applications to the Court were lodged after the applicants had been released. The applicants maintained that a claim for compensation could not be considered effective in view of the domestic practice. 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 (cited above, § 34) the Court concluded that the remedy at issue should in principle be used by a person who intended to claim, after the release, that his or her prison conditions had been incompatible with Article   3 of the Convention. The factual background in the present cases 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 cases were no longer detained. As regards the applicants’ objections as to the ineffectiveness of the domestic compensatory remedy, they are based on the same arguments as 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 cases. The Court therefore concludes 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.” Even assuming that Article 13 is applicable, the Court notes that 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 complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 4 June 2015.   Milan Blaško   Angelika Nußberger   Deputy Registrar   President Appendix   No Application No. Lodged on Applicant Date of birth Place of residence Period of detention   16711/14 19/02/2014 Bojan KOSEDNAR 21/07/1983 Mirna   From 13/06/2013 to 27/01/2014   16720/14 19/02/2014 Nejad MAJETIĆ 04/06/1979 Dob   From 19/09/2012 to 26/11/2013   16724/14 19/02/2014 Robert MAKSIĆ 25/06/1983 Mirna   From 10/08/2013 to 12/12/2013   33092/14 24/04/2014 Dušan JOVOVIĆ 25/02/1989 Dob   From 06/01/2014 to 01/04/2014