CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 juin 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 11 July 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 49439/21 Kristijan HANŽEVAČKI against Croatia lodged on 1 October 2021 communicated on 24 June 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s conditions of imprisonment. The applicant served his five-year prison sentence in prisons in Varaždin, Zagreb, Bjelovar and Lepoglava. He complains that his conditions of imprisonment in all of those prisons had been inhuman and degrading. The domestic courts dismissed his claim for damages as ill-founded and ordered him to reimburse to the State the costs of litigation. The Constitutional Court declared his subsequent complaint inadmissible by what the applicant claims to have been a retroactive application of the admissibility criteria. The applicant raises complaints under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? In particular, did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular the personal space available in the cells, the time allowed outside the cell and the sanitary conditions in the prisons where he had served his prison sentence, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment (see Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, 20   October 2016, and Ulemek v. Croatia , no.   21613/16, 31 October 2019)?   2.     Has the applicant’s right of access to the Constitutional Court been disproportionately restricted, in breach of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention? (cf. Janković and Others v. Croatia (dec.), nos. 23244/16 et al., §§ 53-66, 21   September 2021)   3.     Has the amount of costs of proceedings, that the applicant was ordered to pay to the State, disproportionately restricted his right of access to court, in breach of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, and/or violated his property rights, contrary to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (cf. Klauz v.   Croatia , no. 28963/10, 18 July 2013, and Cindrić and Bešlić v. Croatia , no. 72152/13, 6 September 2016)?   4.     Was a constitutional complaint an effective remedy for the applicant’s Convention grievances, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?