CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .s1DE04B9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 9 February 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 28059/25 Milorad ULEMEK against Serbia lodged on 1 September 2025 communicated on 19 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s prolonged placement under special prison regime which entails restrictions on his freedom of movement within prison and on visits. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court in respect of several of his constitutional complaints concerning his prison regime. He further complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the lack of grounds for his placement under the special prison regime, and about the conditions of such regime, in particular as regards the time he is allowed to spend outside his cell. He also complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the restrictions on family visits. Lastly, he complains under Article 13 of the Convention that he has no effective remedy for his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the length of proceedings before the Constitutional Court been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   6 §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Do the material conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular the time allowed outside the cell, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see Gallico v. Italy , no.   53723/00, §§ 19-23, 28 June 2005; Horych v. Poland , no. 13621/08, §§   93-103, 17 April 2012; and Provenzano v. Italy , no. 55080/13, § 147, 25   October   2018, and the cases cited therein)?   3.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family 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 (see Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, §§ 125-129, ECHR 2009; Piechowicz v. Poland , no. 20071/07, §§ 212-222, 17 April 2012; Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2), no. 38321/17, §§ 137-177, 31 March 2022; Vool and Toomik v. Estonia , nos. 7613/18 and 12222/18, §§ 82-113, 29   March 2022; and Lesław Wójcik v. Poland , no. 66424/09, §§ 111-135, 1   July 2021)?   4.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?   The Government are invited to provide a detailed report on the applicant’s prison regime, in particular as regards the time he has been allowed to spend outside his cell, and the visits, both since the beginning of 2018 until present.