European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 5783/10
Drago PEČKO against Slovenia
and 9 other applications
(see list appended)

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 February 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on the dates indicated in the attached table,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants Mr Drago Pečko, Mr Zoran Benić, Mr Anđelko Vardič, Mr Danijel Bekš, Mr Enis Bajić, Mr MatjaZ Jusič, Mr Miroslav Adler, Mr Marko Kos and Mr Damijan Kranjec are Slovenian nationals. Mr Elvir Šabotić is a Montenegrin national. Their birthdates are indicated in the attached table. They were represented before the Court by Odvetniška DruZba Matoz o.p. d.o.o., a law firm practicing in Koper. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs T. Mihelič Zitko, State Attorney.

The Montenegrin Government had been informed of their right to intervene in the case of Mr Šabotić (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 of the Rules of Court), however they did not avail themselves of that right.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants served, or are currently serving, sentences in the closed section of Dob Prison. As regards the facilities available to the applicants in the cells and common areas, as well as the health care regime in the prison, the conditions imposed on the applicants regarding activities outside the cells and contact with the outside world, see the Court’s decision in the case of Lalić and Others v. Slovenia (dec.), nos. 5711/10, 5719/10, 5754/10, 5803/10, 5956/10, 5958/10, 5987/10, 6091/10, 6647/10 and 6893/10, 27 September 2011.

The individual circumstances, such as period of imprisonment, personal space allocated to the each applicant and their activities outside the cells, are indicated in the attached table.

COMPLAINTS

The applicants complained that the conditions of their detention in Dob Prison amounted to a violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. In particular, they complained of severe overcrowding, which had led to a lack of personal space, poor sanitary conditions and inadequate ventilation, as well as excessive restrictions on time spent outside the cell, high temperatures in the cells, inadequate health care and psychological assistance, inadequate measures as regards the rehabilitation of drug addicts, and exposure to violence from other inmates owing to insufficient prison security. They further submitted that the situation amounted to a structural problem, which had been acknowledged by the domestic authorities.

Invoking Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, the applicants also complained of restrictions on visits, telephone conversations and correspondence.

The applicants lastly complained, under Article 13, that they did not have any effective remedy at their disposal as regards their complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention.

THE LAW

Given that the present applications concern a similar subject-matter, the Court decides to join them (Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court).

The Court notes that the applicants’ complaints are identical to those of the applicants in the case of Lalić and Others (cited above). In that case the Court has found the general conditions of detention in the closed section of Dob Prison, including the medical and psychological care provided to the prisoners held therein, as well as the arrangements concerning security measures, and the restrictions on maintaining contact with people outside the prison to be adequate vis-à-vis the Convention standards. It has accordingly also rejected the applicants’ complaint under Article 13 of the Convention, as no arguable claim for the purpose of the aforementioned provision could have been established.

The Court takes note of the similar factual background of the aforementioned case and the present applications, including the fact that the present applicants always had sufficient personal space in the cells in which they were detained. Therefore, the present applications should be rejected as being manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to join the applications;

Declares the applications inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Ann Power-Forde
Deputy Registrar President