CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 2 avril 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .sFF7FC10F { width:95.94%; border-collapse:collapse } .sCA8669C2 { width:7.84%; 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 } .s5173E8E0 { width:22.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3D484263 { width:10.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s54E9D62F { width:18.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s3A113B6B { width:16.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2A1773AF { width:24.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sA168D514 { width:7.84%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s74DC3D21 { margin-left:33.01pt; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold } .s6565FF6A { width:22.64%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF4F6D646 { width:10.5%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD77B6B90 { width:18.76%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s24A84A3E { width:16.18%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sFE87FB53 { width:24.08%; border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s3FA4A79A { font-family:Arial; font-size:12pt; font-weight:bold; list-style-position:inside } .sE74C84FB { width:20.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block }   Communicated on 2 April 2019   FIFTH SECTION Applications nos. 6780/18 and 30776/18 Peter ROTH against Germany lodged on 20 February 2018 and 26 September 2018 respectively SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications concern regular strip searches in Straubing prison. On 5   November 2016, the Federal Constitutional Court, upon the constitutional complaint of another prisoner, declared the regular strip searches in Straubing prison unconstitutional (2 BvR 6/16). The applicant subsequently requested legal aid for compensation proceedings in respect of the searches which he had been exposed to eleven times between January 2014 and September 2016. The courts rejected that request for lack of sufficient prospects of success. They acknowledged that his personality rights had indeed been violated, but held that the applicant could not derive a right to compensation from that violation. Before the Court, the applicant invoked Article 3 of the Convention and complained of inhumane and degrading treatment, invoked Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and complained of arbitrary restriction of access to court, and finally invoked Article 13 of the Convention and complained that the domestic legal order did not provide sufficient remedies to allow for compensations of violations of the Convention. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?   2.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?   If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?   4.     Has there been a breach of the applicant’s right to access to court, as provided for in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the fact that he was refused legal aid for the compensation proceedings?   5.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Articles 3 or 8 § 1 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?       Application no. 6780/18   No. First name LAST NAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative   Peter ROTH 1960 German Straubing       Application no. 30776/18   No. First name LAST NAME Birth year Nationality Place of residence Representative                 Peter ROTH 1960 German Straubing