European Court of Human Rights

 

 

SECOND SECTION

CASE OF JUNGIĆ v. CROATIA

(Application no. 73024/16)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

STRASBOURG

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 March 2023

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

In the case of Jungić v. Croatia,

The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

          Frédéric Krenc, President,
          Diana Sârcu,
          Davor Derenčinović, judges,

and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,

Having deliberated in private on 2 February 2023,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

PROCEDURE

1.  The case originated in an application against Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 24 November 2016.

2.  The applicant was represented by Ms L. Horvat, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.

3.  The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.

THE FACTS

4.  The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.

5.  The applicant complained of the excessive length of civil proceedings. He also complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention and the ineffectiveness of domestic remedies available in that regard.

THE LAW

I.        ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION

6.  The applicant complained that the length of the ongoing civil proceedings he had instituted against the State with a view to obtaining compensation for inadequate conditions of his detention was incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, insofar as relevant, reads as follows:

“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations ... everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”

7.  The period to be taken into consideration began on 21 December 2012 and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted for more than ten years before three levels of jurisdiction.

8.  The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, § 43, ECHR 2000-VII).

9.  In the leading cases of Kirinčić and Others v. Croatia, no. 31386/17, 30 July 2020, and Mirjana Marić v. Croatia, no. 9849/15, 30 July 2020, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

10.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of justifying the overall length of the proceedings at the national level. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.

11.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION

12.  The applicant also complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

13.  The Court notes that the applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of the applicant’s detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96‑101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012).

14.  In the leading cases of Muršić, cited above, §§ 69-73 and 91-173, and Ulemek v. Croatia, no. 21613/16, §§ 71-120 and 126-46, 31 October 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.

15.  Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints.

16.  In particular, the Government’s objection that this complaint is premature because the Constitutional Court has not yet decided on the applicant’s constitutional complaint against the civil courts’ judgments dismissing his action for compensation must be dismissed. To be considered effective such compensatory remedies for inadequate conditions of detention must conform to the reasonable-time requirement (see Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria, nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, § 184, 27 January 2015). Moreover, the speed of remedial action may be relevant in assessing whether a remedy, that is effective in principle, was also practically effective in the particular case for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 (see, mutatis mutandis, Story and Others v. Malta, nos. 56854/13 and 2 others, § 82, 29 October 2015) as excessive length of domestic proceedings may constitute a special circumstance absolving the applicants from exhausting domestic remedies (see, for example, Šorgić v. Serbia, no. 34973/06, § 55, 3 November 2011). Having regard to its finding above that the civil proceedings in question failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement (see paragraphs 9-11), the Court considers that the applicant therefore cannot be required to wait any longer for the Constitutional Court to decide on his constitutional complaint.

17.  Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the applicant’s conditions of detention were inadequate.

18.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.

III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION of article 13 of the convention

19.  Lastly, the applicant complained that the domestic remedies for inadequate conditions of detention had been ineffective in his case. He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”

20.  The Court notes that on 12 January 2012 the applicant availed himself of the available preventive remedy and complained to the sentences‑execution judge about inadequate conditions of his detention in the Varaždin Prison (see the appended table), and that by a decision of 23 April 2012 the judge ordered his removal from such conditions. However, that decision remained unenforced, which rendered that remedy ineffective (see, mutatis mutandis, Kaić and Others v. Croatia, no. 22014/04, §§ 38-44, 17 July 2008).

21.  Likewise, the excessive length of the civil proceedings in the present case rendered the civil action for compensation, an otherwise effective remedy, ineffective (see paragraphs 9-11 above), it being understood that this was the only remedy available to the applicant as regards the conditions of his detention in the Zagreb Prison (see the appended table) in view of the brevity of his stay in that facility (see Ulemek, cited above, § 88).

22.  This complaint is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 13 of the Convention.

IV.  APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

23.  Article 41 of the Convention provides:

“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”

24.  Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Muršić, cited above, § 181; Ulemek, cited above, § 162; Kirinčić and Others, cited above, §§ 20-28; and Mirjana Marić, cited above, §§ 98‑104), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Declares the application admissible;

2.      Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings;

3.      Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;

4.      Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 13 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 3 thereof;

5.      Holds,

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

 

Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 March 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

      Viktoriya Maradudina                                              Frédéric Krenc

    Acting Deputy Registrar                                                President

 

                       

 

APPENDIX

Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention

(inadequate conditions of detention)