CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 31 mars 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s88D564B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border:0.75pt solid #000000; padding:1pt 4pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s368FB275 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:3pt; text-align:justify } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s7C22C014 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD0489F03 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s716C64EA { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18.45pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6C2746C6 { margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s6047437D { width:11.03pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B52A9A9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s7F175FE6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify } .sE5C1F6E3 { width:3.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8773B649 { width:25.2pt; display:inline-block } .s827E7349 { width:140.75pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION CASE OF MASLÁK v. SLOVAKIA (No. 2) (Applications nos. 38321/17 and 8 others)         JUDGMENT Art 8 • Private and family life • Placement of detainee in high security unit while serving part of his prison sentence not in accordance with the law, in the light of inadequate legal protection against abuse • Prison authorities’ discretion and failure to take into account relevant aspects of applicant’s situation • Applicant largely excluded from decision-making process and provided only limited safeguards   STRASBOURG 31 March 2022 FINAL   30/06/2022   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Péter Paczolay, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Alena Poláčková,   Erik Wennerström,   Raffaele Sabato,   Lorraine Schembri Orland,   Davor Derenčinović, judges, and Renata Degener, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos. 38321/17, 82925/17, 156/18, 7426/18, 9755/18, 14907/18, 29635/18, 29636/18 and 35668/18) against the Slovak Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Slovak national, Mr Miroslav Maslák (“the applicant”), on various dates as specified in paragraphs 104 to 107 below; the decision to give notice to the Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) of the complaints under Articles 3, 6, 8 and 13 of the Convention concerning (i) the placement of the applicant in the high-security units of the prisons in which he had been serving a part of his term and the extensions of that placement, (ii) the conditions and severity of the regime in those units (including the limitations on his right to receive visits), (iii) the alleged lack of a judicial review of the placement in those units, its extensions and the limitations on the visiting rights, (iv) the alleged non-communication to the applicant of submissions by the prison authorities in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court and (v) the alleged lack of an effective remedy in that respect, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 1 February and 8 March 2022, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The present nine applications concern execution of a part of the applicant’s prison sentence in a special security prison regime and the legal framework governing it. THE FACTS 2.     The applicant was born in 1979 and has his registered residence in Pružina. He was represented by Mr R. Toman, a lawyer practising in Nové Zámky. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agents, Ms M. Pirošíková, succeeded by Ms M. Bálintová. 4.     Facts that are relevant for the assessment of the nine applications forming this case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. BACKGROUND 5 .     The applicant has so far lodged forty applications under Article 34 of the Convention, against the Slovak Republic and the Czech Republic. They have mainly concerned multiple criminal proceedings against him in respect of various charges relating to actual or alleged violent offences with an organised-crime background. 6.     The present nine applications concern the execution in Slovakia of a ten-year prison sentence imposed on him by the courts of the Czech Republic for extortion and other offences. 7 .     Following his arrest in the Czech Republic on 27 November 2012 and his extradition to Slovakia, the applicant was detained there under a medium ‑ security regime ( stredný stupeň stráženia ) in three different detention facilities: Leopoldov Prison, Ilava Prison and Banská Bystrica ‑ Kráľová (BBK) Prison. Within each of these facilities, he was placed in a high security unit ( oddiel s bezpečnostným režimom – “HSU”) and this fact constitutes the specific focus of the present applications. LEOPOLDOV PRISON 8 .     The applicant was detained in Leopoldov Prison from 22 May 2015 until 15 July 2016. He was originally placed in detention under a “group C” regime, but from 19 June 2015 onwards he was detained under an HSU regime. Placement in an HSU and extending the period spent therein 9 .     Under the applicable law, embodied mainly in the Execution of Prison Sentences Act (Law no. 475/2005 Z. z. Coll, as amended – “the EPSA”) and the Execution of Prison Sentences Order (Decree of the Minister of Justice no. 368/2008 Coll., as amended – “the EPSO”), decisions on the placement of a prisoner in an HSU is entrusted to the governor of the prison in question; the governor and the Public Prosecution Service (“PPS”) must review the situation at least once every three months; and such decisions are to be taken on the basis of a proposal made by the prison’s educational officer ( pedagóg – “PEO”) or the prison’s Service for Prevention and Security ( preventívno – bezpečnostná služba – “ SPS ”), after the proposal has been discussed by a placement committee ( umiestňovacia komisia ). 10 .     In the present case, the applicant was placed in the HSU on preventive security-related grounds ( z preventívno-bezpečnostných dôvodov ). The decisions on his placement and its extensions were taken by the governor on 19 June, 11 September and 4 December 2015 and 26 February and 20   May 2016, respectively. Those decisions were reviewed by the PPS on 21   July and 24 November 2015 and 18 March and 6 July 2016, respectively. 11 .     The decision of 19 June 2015 followed a proposal made by the SPS, which was discussed by the placement committee on the same day. 12 .     In the proposal, the SPS noted that the applicant had been convicted of a serious offence and pointed out that in the Czech Republic he had been detained under a regime similar to an HSU regime, as he had been considered to be particularly dangerous to others, given his dominant personality and manipulative tendencies. 13 .     The minutes of the placement committee’s discussion contain no details other than those relating to the composition of the committee and what can be understood as consent given to the SPS’s proposal by each of its members. 14 .     The decision contains a reference to the applicable legal provisions, but no reasoning. 15 .     The subsequent proposals and decisions are phrased in identical terms; each routine review by the PPS (see paragraphs 9 and 10 above) was concluded with the finding that no irregularities had been established and that the decisions had been lawful, with no further grounds being referred to. Challenges to the applicant’s placement in the HSU 16 .     The applicant pursued his rights before the PPS, the Constitutional Court and the administrative-law judiciary. In so far as can be established, he contended that his placement in the HSU had been arbitrary in that it had been based on no specific reasoning. He furthermore asserted that a copy of the placement decision had only been provided to him after he had lodged a request under the legislation regarding free public access to information and that the suggestion that he was dangerous to others had been based on purely hypothetical elements but no actual evidence. 17 .     His claims were unsuccessful on the following grounds, with the final decisions being delivered by the Constitutional Court on 13 March 2018 (III.   ÚS 94/2018) and the Trnava regional office of the PPS on 22   January 2019. 18 .     The PPS summarised the procedure leading to the applicant’s placement in the HSU, as described above, disputing that there had been a lack of adequate reasoning or signs of arbitrariness or irregularity. While no specific answer was given to the applicant’s other arguments, the PPS repeatedly asserted that the placement had been lawful. 19 .     Under the principle of subsidiarity, the Constitutional Court found having no direct jurisdiction in respect of any actions or omissions on the part of a prison’s administration. Accordingly, jurisdiction in respect of the present case rested with the PPS. The Constitutional Court could consequently only review the way that the PPS had dealt with the applicant’s complaints concerning the prison administration. In that regard, the requirements regarding the extent of the reasoning that had to be contained in the decisions issued by the PPS were not as strict as those in respect of judicial decisions. Citing extensively from the contested decisions of the PPS, the Constitutional Court concluded that they had given adequate answers to the applicant’s arguments and had been based on the relevant law. 20 .     The administrative-law judiciary lacked jurisdiction to deal with the applicant’s grievances, which fell within the jurisdiction of the PPS; they were accordingly transferred to the latter. This resulted in a new round of examination being undertaken by the PPS, which concluded that, with reference to the results of the previous routine examinations (see paragraphs   9 and 10 above), the applicant’s placement in the HSU had been lawful and free from arbitrariness. Conditions in the HSU 21.     The general framework of the conditions is set out in the relevant provisions of the EPSA and the EPSO and in the internal prison rules ( ústavný poriadok – “IPR”). 22 .     In addition, individual aspects of the treatment of an inmate serving a prison term are defined in an individual rehabilitation programme ( program zaobchádzania – “IRP”). Visits 23 .     As a general rule, visits in medium-security-level prisons (see paragraph 7 above) take place as open visits ( s priamym kontaktom ”). However, for detainees held under a “group C” regime (see paragraph 8 above), the position changes and closed visits ( bez priameho kontaktu ) become the general rule. In Leopoldov Prison, the same general rule applies to inmates in the HSU (section 21 of the Leopoldov IPR). Exceptions to the general rules may be granted by the prison governor in justified cases. 24.     In their submission on the facts, the Government stated that on 24   June and 20 November 2015 the applicant had received open visits from his mother. 25.     The focus of the applicant’s Convention complaints comprises requests lodged by him on 2 February and 26 April 2016 for open visits from his mother, brother and friends. 26 .     The governor reviewed those requests on 23 February and 3   June 2016, respectively, but in both cases permitted a closed visit from the applicant’s mother only. In so far as can be established, the decisions did not contain any specific reasoning and were recorded in the form of a short note made on the hard-copy versions of the respective requests. The applicant was informed of the decisions on 4 March and 7 June 2016, respectively. 27.     The applicant challenged the decision of 23 February 2016 before the PPS and that of 3 June 2016 before the administrative-law judiciary. Not having been successful, he pursued his claims further (and again unsuccessfully) by lodging two separate constitutional complaints. He argued that under the relevant law he was entitled to open visits and that the aforementioned conversion of the general rule into closed visits lacked an   adequate legal basis, in that it was based on no more than the Leopoldov Prison’s IPR. Moreover, the decisions had lacked reasoning and they had not been served on him in writing (he had only been notified of them orally). 28 .     As regards the governor’s decision of 23 February 2016, the final decision was delivered by the Constitutional Court on 31August 2017 (I.   ÚS   429/17). The authorities’ reasoning may be summarised as follows. The applicant had initially been classified for detention under a “group C” regime but had later been placed in the HSU. Under the applicable statute, the general rule for inmates placed in “group C” detention was that they could only receive closed visits. A decision not to allow an open visit thus necessitated no reasoning; reasoning was only required in respect of a decision to grant an exception to that general rule – that is to say only if an open visit was allowed. Such a decision lay within the exclusive authority of the prison governor, and in the applicant’s case it was completely lawful. In the light of the subsidiarity principle, the Constitutional Court had no power to review the governor’s decision and could only examine the way in which that decision had been reviewed by the PPS. Observing those limits – and referring to material submitted in the constitutional proceedings by the respondent of the complaint (that is to say the prison administration) – the Constitutional Court identified no unlawfulness or lack of reasoning. 29 .     In respect of the governor’s decision of 3 June 2016, the final decision was given by the Constitutional Court on 1 February 2018 (II. ÚS 86/2018). The conclusion and the reasons behind it may be summarised as follows. The contested decision was not one that had been delivered by an administrative body within the area of public administration. It had been delivered in the course of the execution of a prison sentence. This procedure had roots in criminal law and constituted a continuation and an integral part of the criminal procedure. Its regulation fell within the same area of law, the purpose of which served a different purpose than that of administrative law. The administrative-law judiciary accordingly had no jurisdiction in the matter; under the relevant statutes (the EPSA and the PPS Act), such jurisdiction was entrusted to the PPS. The applicant’s claims were thus transferred to the latter for determination. 30 .     Following the referral mentioned in the preceding paragraph, the applicant’s complaints in respect of the decision of 3 June 2016 were examined and dismissed by the PPS and, ultimately, on 20 December 2017 also by the Constitutional Court (II. ÚS 730/2017). The reasons cited were essentially the same as those given in the decision of 23 February 2016 (see paragraph 28 above). Moreover, it was noted that the law laid down no requirements as to the form of the decision by the prison governor when ruling on a request lodged by an inmate for permission to receive visitors. 31.     Lastly, the applicant’s unsuccessful criminal complaints about the general conditions of his detention (as described at paragraph 35 below) included arguments regarding his right to receive visitors. Other conditions 32 .     Individual aspects of the applicant’s treatment were noted in his IRP, issued on 17 July 2015 and modified on 18   March 2016. Under this programme, his treatment was to be aimed at ensuring that he maintain prison security and accept generally binding norms; any free-time activities that the applicant wished to engage in were subject to the prior approval of the PEO. The original IRP noted that sport (gym, table tennis and chess) was the applicant’s main way of mitigating adverse effects of his imprisonment on his person. He had no interest in other activities mainly because he spent most of his free time studying legal material in connection with various proceedings against him. The IRP concluded by a recommendation that the applicant be supported as much as possible in undertaking physical exercise. In contrast to that, the amended IRP contained no such recommendation and noted that the applicant was also involved in various complaint proceedings against the prison administration. He was to be motivated to use outside walks for sporting activities and to use bibliotherapy, art therapy and relaxation techniques in order to reduce inner tension. 33 .     As to the general conditions of his detention in the HSU in Leopoldov Prison, the applicant’s submissions included the following assertions: -   until the modification of his IRP on 18 March 2016 he had been allowed to make use of the prison gym, but from that date onwards this had no longer been possible. A request lodged by the applicant to be allowed to use the gym again had been refused solely on the grounds that inmates in the HSU did not participate in the determination of their IRP and that their free-time activities were subject to the PEO’s approval, -   the applicant’s lack of exercise had resulted in a deterioration of back and knee injuries from which he had already been suffering, -   his normal daily regime had consisted of his having to spend twenty ‑ three hours confined alone in his cell, with one hour allocated for a walk outside, during which he had sporadically seen (but not been allowed to interact with) other inmates, -   there had been no common room available for activities such as watching television with other inmates, and he had only been able to watch television alone in his cell, -   it had not been possible for him to engage in work that he considered appropriate for him; moreover, such work as had been available (sewing shoes) would not have provided him with the opportunity to interact with others, since he would have carried it out alone, in his own cell, -   he had not taken part in the psychotherapy and educational activities offered by the prison, since he had deemed them to be ineffective. 34 .     The Government for their part submitted, inter alia , that: -   inmates in a situation similar to that of the applicant had had the opportunity to be in regular contact with prison personnel such as the PEO, a social services officer, psychologist and a chaplain, -   until the amendment of his IRP in March 2016 he had been allowed to make use of a gym and he had occasionally played table tennis and chess, -   there was no evidence of any deterioration of his health as a result of his not being able to make use of the prison gym after March 2016, -   the applicant had been offered but had refused to engage in music therapy, art therapy, bibliotherapy and classes on relaxation techniques, -   he had been able to make use of a common room and thus have contact with other prisoners, -   the prison authorities had actively sought to assign the applicant work with other inmates, but he had first refused, and when finally given work in March 2016 he had damaged one of the products being manufactured, as a result of which it had been necessary to withdraw him from that work, -   the applicant had been allowed telephone communication with close persons six times a month (each time for twenty-five minutes) – above the minimum standard provided by the applicable law. 35 .     The applicant challenged the general conditions of his detention by means of lodging two criminal complaints, two interlocutory appeals with the PPS against the dismissal of those complaints, and two constitutional complaints. He challenged mainly (i) his not being allowed to make use of the gym, (ii) and the negative or belated decisions regarding his requests for permission to receive open visits and for additional telephone time with his close persons. Among other arguments, he contended that his treatment had been retaliation for his having lodged formal complaints about the prison administration. He argued that the actions of the prison administration in this regard had been contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and that the authorities had failed to conduct an effective investigation into the matter. 36.     The applicant’s criminal complaints were dismissed by the investigator who, on the basis of oral evidence given by the PEO and various written documents, found that neither the PEO nor any other employee of Leopoldov Prison had committed any offence. 37.     The applicant’s interlocutory appeals were dismissed, and his constitutional complaints were declared inadmissible as manifestly ill ‑ founded (by a decision of 5 December 2017 (III. ÚS 740/17)) and lacking in the requisite form (by a letter of 23 February 2017 (Rvp 315/2017)). The gist of the reasons may be summarised as follows. 38 .     The Constitutional Court’s review was limited in that its function was not to assess or review facts. It had accordingly no power to assess evidence and could only review legal conclusions reached by other authorities if they manifestly deviated from the object and purpose of the applicable law. 39.     Within those parameters, the investigator had obtained and assessed ample evidence to support his conclusion that no elements of a crime had been established. This conclusion had been supported by congruent reasoning, and no failure on the part of the PPS had been established. There was no arguable claim of treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, and nor was there any right to seek the criminal prosecution of third persons. ILAVA PRISON 40.     The applicant was detained in Ilava Prison from 15 July until 1   December 2016, his period of detention in its HSU beginning on 22 July. The applicant’s placement in the HSU and the extension of his period of detention therein 41 .     The decisions on the applicant’s placement in an HSU and its extension were taken by the prison governor on 22 July and 21 October 2016, respectively, with the PPS’s routine review on 4 November 2016. 42 .     Both the placement and its extension followed proposals by the SPS, citing the need to avert security risks indicated by the available information on the applicant’s personality and his dominant and manipulative tendencies. The applicant followed the applicable rules and his behaviour was adequate, as long as there was no stressful situation. As in Leopoldov Prison, the minutes of the placement committee’s discussion contain no details and, while referring to the applicable rules, the decisions contain no reasoning (see paragraphs 13 and 14 above). The applicant requested (under the law on free public access to information) and obtained a copy of the decision of 22 July 2016, but it is unclear whether he has ever received a copy of that of 21 October 2016. Challenges against the applicant’s placement in the HSU 43 .     The applicant pursued his rights in relation to his placement in the HSU (and the extension of his period of detention therein) by bringing two administrative-law actions. In both actions he argued that he had been excluded from the decision-making process and sought an order that the respective decisions be at least officially served on him. In the first action, he also sought a judicial review of the decision itself, advancing essentially the same arguments as those outlined in paragraph 16 above. 44 .     As was the case in regard to Leopoldov Prison, the administrative-law judiciary transferred the actions to the PPS, holding that they fell within the jurisdiction of the latter (see paragraph 20 above). In its decision of 6 June 2017, the Trenčín Regional Court added that it could nevertheless not be excluded that matters concerning prison conditions also fell within the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. The Regional Court also noted that the challenged decision on the extension of the applicant’s placement in the HSU (22 October 2016) no longer effectively applied to him because, in the meantime (1 December 2016), he had already been transferred to BBK Prison, where a new placement decision had to be adopted (see paragraphs 55 et seq . below). 45 .     The applicant challenged before the Constitutional Court the decisions to transfer his actions to the PPS, arguing that the administrative tribunals had been bound to examine his arguments on the merits. However, citing extensively from the challenged decisions, the Constitutional Court concluded that they had been convincing, based on the law and duly reasoned (decisions of 1 August and 20 September 2017, nos. III. ÚS 507/17 and   I.   ÚS   468/17). In its decisions the Constitutional Court took no position regarding the suggestion that civil courts might also have jurisdiction in matters concerning prison conditions. 46 .     Following the transfer of the applicant’s actions to the PPS, the latter made findings similar to those that it had made previously regarding his HSU detention in Leopoldov Prison (see paragraphs 18 and 20 above). Moreover, it noted that there was no legal provision specifying that a decision to place a person in an HSU should be formally served on the subject of that decision. 47.     In addition to these efforts and results, the applicant also unsuccessfully complained of his placement in the HSU within the context of his criminal complaint about the conditions in the HSU (see paragraphs 51 et   seq. below). Conditions in the HSU 48 .     The applicant’s IRP in Ilava Prison was issued on 11 August 2016 and focused on similar goals as those in the IRP issued in Leopoldov Prison (see paragraph 32 above). However, it was specified that they were to be pursued by directive means. Any free time activities were subject to the approval of the PEO; preference was to be given to reading appropriate material in an effort to correct what was referred to as the applicant’s antisocial behaviour, correspondence, outside walks and watching television. In order to defuse tension and promote his rehabilitation, the applicant was to be offered relaxation techniques by means of video and audio recordings. 49 .     As to the general conditions of his detention in the HSU in Ilava Prison, the applicant’s submissions included assertions that: -   he had not been allowed to make use of the gym, the prison governor having refused his request to that effect on the grounds that using the gym was not a part of his IRP and that the PEO had not authorised it, -   he had not been allowed to receive open visits until one such visit by his mother and brother had been permitted, after he had started complaining of what he considered to be bullying by his PEO, -   he had been able to watch television for only one and a half to two hours a day in the common room but had not been allowed any social contact, given that he had only been allowed to spend time in the common room on his own, -   there had been one instance when his request for authorisation for him to be allowed to walk with another prisoner when exercising his right to take a walk outside had been refused arbitrarily and without any explanation. 50 .     In that respect, the Government submitted, inter alia , that: -   the applicant had been treated in accordance with his IRP and that the open visit by his mother and brother had been permitted to motivate him to   pursue the IRP’s goals, -   he had been allowed to make use of the common room, which had afforded him contact with other inmates, -   his request for authorisation of an outside walk with another inmate had been refused owing to the character of the latter and the undesirable influence that he had exercised on the applicant, -   he had not been assigned work in view of the results of his work in Leopoldov Prison (see paragraph 34 above). 51.     In relation to the conditions of his HSU detention in Ilava Prison, the applicant pursued his rights by lodging (i) a criminal complaint, which was examined by the PPS by way of ensuring respect for lawfulness in places of detention (see paragraph 83 below), and (ii) a constitutional complaint. He argued that his placement and continued confinement in the HSU was arbitrary and that in view of the conditions of that detention he had been treated in a manner contrary to Article 3 of the Convention. 52.     His complaints were unsuccessful, the final decision being delivered by the Constitutional Court on 16 October 2017 (III. ÚS 389/18). The reasons may be summarised as follows. 53 .     As the placement in the HSU did not constitute a disciplinary measure, it called for no more than brief reasoning. Permitting open visits lay entirely within the discretion of the prison governor. The conditions of the applicant’s detention and his daily regime were in full conformity with law and his complaints in that respect had been duly examined by the prison governor. 54.     The Constitutional Court found that the PPS had duly examined the applicant’s claims and that, accordingly, its actions in that examination could not have violated his rights under Article 3 of the Convention. BANSKÁ BYSTRICA-KRÁĽOVÁ 55 .     On 1 and 6 December 2016, respectively, the applicant was transferred to BBK Prison and placed in its HSU. He was detained under the latter regime until it was lifted on 10 July 2018, when he was transferred to the general prison population within that prison. The applicant’s detention in BBK Prison ended in October 2020, when he was released on parole. Placement of the applicant in the HSU and the extension of his period of detention therein 56 .     The applicant’s placement in the HSU on 6 December 2016 was not subject to any separate formal decision. It was extended by the prison governor on 20 January, 20 April, 18 July and 17 October 2017 and 16   January and 10 April 2018. These decisions followed proposals made by the SPS, which cited the crimes of which he had been convicted in the Czech Republic, other offences of which he stood accused in Slovakia, and preventive security-related grounds. The proposal was endorsed by the placement committee and accepted by the governor in the same manner as in the other prisons (see paragraphs 13, 14 and 42 above). 57 .     Before the Court, the Government submitted that , by way of a routine review, the PPS had examined the applicant’s HSU detention in BBK Prison on 1 December 2016, 13 March, 5 June, 7 September and 1 December 2017, and 7 March and 15 June 2018, finding it each time lawful. Challenges to the placement in the HSU 58.     The applicant pursued his rights in relation to his placement in the HSU in BBK Prison by way of an administrative-law action, a complaint with the PPS and, ultimately, a complaint with the Constitutional Court. His principal argument was that his placement in the HSU on 6 December 2016 had been unlawful, given that it had lacked any formal decision. 59 .     His efforts were unsuccessful, the final decision being given by the Constitutional Court on 28 September 2017 (III. ÚS 598/17). The reasons may be summarised as follows. 60 .     As noted by the PPS, prior to the applicant’s transfer to BBK Prison (on 1 December 2016), his placement in an HSU regime had been ordered by the governor of Ilava Prison (22 July 2016), and that order had been extended on 22 October 2016) (see paragraph 41 above). This extension had been valid by law for three months, that is to say until 22 January 2017. Thus, given the circumstances, the applicant’s placement in the HSU in BBK Prison on 6   December 2016 had still been covered by the preceding decisions and hence had not called for a new one. 61 .     Referring to “objective evidence about the applicant’s behaviour in prison”, which the Constitutional Court stated that it had “neither any reasons nor authority to doubt”, his placement in the HSU was considered to have been lawful and free from any arbitrariness. However, the contents of the Constitutional Court’s file, a copy of which has been made available to the Court, contain no sign of any submission made in reply to the applicant’s constitutional complaint by its respondent (the prison administration). 62 .     The Constitutional Court found that the administrative-law judiciary lacked jurisdiction to examine the applicant’s arguments. The proceedings in respect of his administrative-law action were accordingly terminated. The matter fell within the jurisdiction of the PPS. However, as the applicant himself had initiated proceedings before the latter, it was unnecessary to transfer his action to it (decision of the Banská Bystrica Regional Court of 31   July 2017). Conditions in the HSU Visits 63.     The BBK Prison IPR provide that, as a general rule, visits to inmates in HSUs are closed. It is undisputed that on 30 April, 31 May and 28 June 2018 the applicant received such visits from his mother and brother. 64 .     The applicant asserted (that assertion is contested by the Government) that on 25 April and 16 July 2017 he had asked for permission to receive an   open visit from a friend but those requests had been refused. He further submitted that the respective decisions had not been served on him and that the prison director had dismissed his requests for a copy of them under the law on free access to information on the grounds that information on execution of sentences was exempted from public access. 65 .     On 8 April 2018 the applicant requested permission to receive an open visit from his mother and brother. In response, only a closed visit was permitted, but it is unclear whether it actually took place. 66 .     In respect of the alleged refusal of his alleged requests of 25 April and 16 July 2017, the applicant brought two civil actions against BBK Prison administration and its governor, respectively, seeking protection of his rights of the defence, of access to information, to be presumed innocent and to the protection of his privacy (9C/45/2017 and 9C/50/2017). Both actions were discontinued on the grounds that the prison administration had no legal capacity to be sued and that the action against the prison governor fell outside the jurisdiction of the ordinary courts. On the latter point, the courts found that the action fell outside the parameters of any recognised form of action and did not concern a private-law matter that could be litigated before the ordinary courts. In so far as can be established, the applicant appealed against the decision concerning the request of 25 April 2017 but no information has been made available to the Court about any further developments. 67 .     By means of a civil action against the administration of BBK Prison, the applicant also challenged the decision on his request of 8 April 2018 (see paragraph 65 above), arguing that it had breached his right not to be discriminated against. The action itself was discontinued, as he had failed to pay the relevant court fees (decision of the Banská Bystrica District Court of 25   July 2018, case no. 19C 42/18). However, the discontinuation of the proceedings had been preceded by the refusal of his request for an exemption from the duty to pay the court fee, in the examination of which the Constitutional Court had confirmed (paragraphs 21 and 22 of its decision of 6 March 2019 file no. I. ÚS 70/19) that its case-law in respect of the jurisdiction of the PPS in matters that the applicant had previously attempted to raise before the administrative judiciary applied, mutatis mutandis , to the subject matter of his civil action. Other conditions 68 .     The applicant’s IRP in BBK Prison has not been provided to the Court. However, the applicant submitted to the Court various prison material concerning the daily regime and any free time activities, which in his view (uncontested by the Government) indicated that no such activities had been available in the HSU regime in BBK Prison and that that regime had been similar in nature to solitary confinement. 69 .     As to the conditions of that detention (other than those concerning his receiving visits), the applicant asserted, inter alia , that: -   he had not been able to make use of the gym or to have his own exercising equipment in his cell, -   he had been allowed to telephone close persons only twice a month; -   no common room had been available; -   since approximately January 2018 he had been allowed to take walks outside, to which he had been entitled, in the company of other convicted inmates and to make use of a gym-like room referred to as a “multi-functional room” ( multifunkčná miestnosť ) three times a week, where he had also been able to meet and exchange with other convicted inmates. 70 .     In the Government’s submission: -   the applicant had been allowed to make use of a common room where he had been able to interact with other inmates; -   the applicant had been able to make use of a computer with Internet access twice a week for up to thirty minutes each time; -   upon his joining the general prison population (see paragraph 55 above), the applicant had received monthly closed visits from his mother and brothers and had also been assigned work within the prison of a nature that afforded him the opportunity to interact with others. 71.     The applicant sought to challenge the general conditions of his detention in the HSU of BBK Prison by adding his arguments in that respect to his civil action concerning the handling of his request of 25 April 2017 for permission to receive visitors. The outcome of that action is detailed in paragraph 66 above. OTHER FACTS CITED BY THE GOVERNMENT 72 .     The applicant brought a civil action in the Banská Bystrica District Court (case no. 9C 1/18), seeking protection of his privacy and compensation from the administration of BBK Prison. In so far as can be established, the action is not directly related to the subject matter of the present case, and concerns allegations that he had been wrongfully denied access to postage stamps and certain documents and prevented from posting the latter. On 25 May 2018 the District Court discontinued the proceedings. It held, inter alia , that the dispute was not of a private-law nature and, accordingly, fell outside the jurisdiction of general courts within the meaning of Article 3 of the Code of Civil Contentious Procedure (Law no.   160/2015 Coll., as amended – “CCCP”). The matter rather fell within the jurisdiction of the PPS under the EPSA and the PPS Act (sections   4(1)(b) and 18). On 14 March 2019 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court allowed an appeal lodged by the applicant and remitted the action to the District Court for re-examination. In so far as relevant, it held that there could be instances where a course of action taken by a prison administration could be incompatible with the requirements of the EPSA and at the same time violate the claimant’s personal integrity within the meaning of Articles 11 et seq . of the Civil Code. In the case at hand the applicant’s assertions fell outside the remit of the PPS and within the jurisdiction of the general courts. It was thus incumbent upon the latter to examine whether there had been an unjustified interference with his personal integrity and, if so, who was responsible for that interference. The answer to those questions would determine who had standing to be sued in the case and whether the action was well ‑ founded. No information has been made available as to the further course and any outcome of the action. 73 .     The applicant has also brought a set of actions against all three prison facilities seeking protection of his right not to be discriminated against. These are pending before the District Courts in Trenčín (cases no. 19 C 16/2017 and   23C 40/2017) and Banská Bystrica (case no. 9C 44/2017). As far as could be established, the latter proceedings concern the applicant’s wish, while he was in in BBK Prison, to be allowed to purchase nutritional supplements. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE CONSTITUTION 74.     The “right to judicial and other legal protection” is laid down in Section ( Oddiel ) Seven of Part ( Hlava ) Two, dealing with “basic rights and freedoms”. The relevant part of Article 46 provides as follows: “1.   Everyone shall be able to assert his or her rights, in a procedure provided by an   Act of Parliament, before an independent and impartial court of law and, in cases defined by an Act of Parliament, before another organ of the Slovak Republic ... 2.   Any person asserting that his or her rights have been curtailed by a decision issued by a public administration body shall be able to have the lawfulness of that decision determined by a court, unless an Act of Parliament provides otherwise. However, a review of decisions concerning fundamental rights and freedoms must not be excluded from the jurisdiction of the courts. ... 4.   Conditions and details ... shall be provided by an Act of Parliament.” 75 .     Article 127 reads as follows: “1.   The Constitutional Court shall decide on complaints by natural or legal persons alleging a violation of their fundamental rights or freedoms ... unless the protection of such rights and freedoms falls within the jurisdiction of a different court. 2.   If the Constitutional Court finds a complaint [to be] justified, it shall deliver a decision stating that a person’s rights or freedoms, as set out in paragraph 1, have been breached by a final decision, specific measure or other act and shall quash that decision, measure or act. If the breach that has been found is the result of a failure to act, the Constitutional Court may order [the authority] that has breached the rights or freedoms to take the necessary action. At the same time it may remit the case to the authority concerned for further proceedings, order that authority to   refrain from breaching the fundamental rights and freedoms ... or, where appropriate, order those who have breached the rights or freedoms set out in paragraph 1 to restore the situation to that existing prior to the breach. 3.   In its decision on a complaint the Constitutional Court may award appropriate financial compensation to the person whose rights under paragraph 1 have been breached.” 76.     Section One of Part Eight defines the status of the PPS as follows: “Article 149 The [PPS] shall protect the rights and legally recognised interests of individuals, legal entities and the State. Article 150 The [PPS] shall be headed by the Prosecutor General, who shall be appointed and recalled by the President of the Slovak Republic upon a proposal of the National Council of the Slovak Republic. Article 151 Further details regarding the appointment, recall, powers and duties of members of the [PPS] as well as the organisation thereof shall be laid down by an Act of Parliament.” 77 .     As observed by the Constitutional Court in relation to the status of the PPS in the system of separat