CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 juin 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt }   Published on 12 July 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 43763/20 Ljubo BIGOVIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 23 September 2020 communicated on 22 June 2021   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant’s complaint under Article 3 of the Convention concerns the poor conditions of detention in a remand prison. The applicant was serving a 30-year prison sentence for attempted extortion, public endangerment and aggravated murder, all through incitement. On 25   June 2019 the Constitutional Court accepted his (and other defendants’) constitutional appeal, finding a violation of Article 6 of the Convention, quashed the Supreme Court’s judgment issued in the course of criminal proceedings and ordered a re-trial before that court (the Supreme Court). Following this the applicant was transferred from the prison unit back to the remand section on 8   October 2019. On 4 December 2019 the Supreme Court quashed the judgment of the Court of Appeal issued in the course of criminal proceedings and ordered a re-trial before that court. The criminal proceedings are currently pending before the Court of Appeal. The Court already found a violation of Article 3 in the applicant’s earlier case on account of poor conditions in the remand prison (see Bigović   v.   Montenegro , no. 48343/16, §§   145-147, 19 March 2019).   QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular the sanitary conditions, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? The Government are also requested to   comment on   the following points: (a)   what is the floor surface of the cell (in square metres) in which the applicant stays? (b)     How many beds are available in the cell in which he stays? (c)     How many detainees are held in the cell with him? Indicate the maximum number of detainees, not the average. (d)   Is the toilet in the applicant’s cell separated from the rest of the room, and who is in charge of cleaning the cell? (e) Indicate the duration of out-of-cell time available to him per day and the area available for this purpose. (f)     Indicate the frequency and the duration of outdoor exercise, the surface area of the exercise yard (in square metres) he can use during exercise and the type of covering above the yard (metal bars, solid roof, netting, etc.).