CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juin 2024

.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 24 June 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 42029/22 Dávid KRÁTKY and Dominik KRÁTKY against Slovakia lodged on 8 August 2022 communicated on 7 June 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the conditions of detention in penitentiary institutions in Bratislava, Banská Bystrica, Ilava, Leopoldov, Prešov and Žilina where the applicants were held in solitary confinement pending trial and subsequently during the execution of their life sentences. The applicants were held in pre-trial detention from their arrest in March   2017 until July 2021 when they were sentenced to life imprisonment. They complain that they were detained in isolation from other detainees, having been allowed to leave their small and dirty cells for one-hour walks in a closed area. Moreover, the applicants’ contacts with members of their families were restricted to one two-hour non-contact visit per month; and telephone calls were allowed only in the last month of their pre-trial detention. According to the applicants, their placement in solitary confinement pending trial was not subject to any review, and they were not involved in the decision-making process regarding their complaints in this respect when serving their prison sentence. The applicants finally complain that prisoners serving life sentences in other European countries are not subjected to so severe security measures as them. The applicants invoke Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, alone and in conjunction with Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicants’ solitary confinement as of 6 March 2017 onwards and the related restrictions imposed on them attain the minimum level of severity required by Article 3 of the Convention? If so, were the applicants subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Piechowicz v. Poland , no.   20071/07, §§   158-65, 17   April 2012, with further references; Csüllög v.   Hungary , no.   30042/08, §§   27-31, 7   June 2011; and compare Maslák v.   Slovakia (no. 2) , no.   38321/17, §§ 181-192, 31 March 2022)?   2.     Alternatively, did the applicants’ protracted solitary confinement and the restrictions imposed on them in this connection constitute a violation of Article 8 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Maslák (no. 2) , cited above, §§ 144-177)?   3.     Did the applicants suffer discrimination in the enjoyment of their Convention rights on the grounds of their status as remand prisoners and subsequently as prisoners serving life sentences, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Articles   3 and 8 of the Convention (see Costel Gaciu v. Romania , no.   39633/10, 23   June 2015; Varnas v. Lithuania , no. 42615/06, 9 July 2013; and Laduna v. Slovakia , no. 31827/02, 13   December 2011)?   4.     Did the applicants have at their disposal effective domestic remedies for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   5.     Have the applicants exhausted the domestic remedies, within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, in respect of their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, having regard to the applicable legislation and practice (including, but not limited to section 59 of the Execution of Detention on Remand Act (Law no. 221/2006 Coll., as amended); section 38(1) of the Execution of Detention on Remand Order (Decree of the Minister of Justice no. 437/2006 Coll., as amended); section   18 of the Public Prosecution Service Act (Law no. 153/2001 Coll., as amended); sections 65da et seq. of Prison and Court Guard Corps Act (Law no. 4/2001 Coll., as amended); decision of the Constitutional Court of 30 September 2021 in case no. II. ÚS 425/2021 and judgment of the Constitutional Court of 10 February 2022 in case no. III. ÚS 456/2021)? With regard to the criterion of effectiveness of any such remedies, what are the parameters and limitations of their functioning (see, mutatis mutandis , Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2) , quoted above, §§ 161-69 and 175).#   6.     The Government are invited to submit copies of all relevant decisions and documents concerning the grounds for the applicants’ placement in solitary confinement and its extensions. The Government are further invited to submit the relevant parts of the applicants’ personal files from all the prison facilities where they were placed, describe the material conditions and regime in all the prison facilities separately, including any restrictions imposed on the applicants during their placement in solitary confinement and submit the records of any further restrictions on the applicants’ personal liberty, such as using handcuffs, etc. Furthermore, the Government are invited to submit a list of visits from family and non-family members received by the applicants since 6 March 2017, indicating the visits with direct contact, and supporting documents.