CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 février 2022

.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 } Published on 28 February 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 3646/17 Amir MAFALANI against Croatia lodged on 3 January 2017 communicated on 7 February 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of his detention in Zagreb Prison (poor ventilation, lighting, heating, hygiene, food and medical care) and about the overly rigid prison regime imposed on him (social isolation, total restriction of use of television and press, handcuffing his arms and legs and having no procedural safeguards in that respect). It further concerns his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention about the authorities’ monitoring correspondence with his lawyer, attested to by a court stamp on one of the open letters. The applicant brought the above complaints before the domestic authorities, although unsuccessfully. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the conditions of the applicant’s detention and the imposition of the special prison regime on him amount to inhuman or degrading treatment within the meaning of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for instance, Onoufriou v. Cyprus , no. 24407/04, §§ 66-81, 7 January 2010; Piechowicz v.   Poland , no. 20071/07, §§ 158-178, 17 April 2012; and Rzakhanov v.   Azerbaijan , no. 4242/07, §§ 62-76, 4 July 2013)?   2.     Has there been an unjustified interference with the applicant’s right to respect for the confidentiality of his correspondence with his lawyer, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention (see, for instance, Campbell v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1992, §§ 32-54, Series A no. 233; Jankauskas v.   Lithuania , no. 59304/00, §§ 16-23, 24 February 2005; and Piechowicz v.   Poland , cited above, §§ 232-240)?