Analiza slučaja pred Evropskim sudom za ljudska prava
Evropska Konvencija o ljudskim pravima
Praktični vodič za primenu Evropske konvencije o ljudskim pravima
Priručnici i vodiči kroz praksu Evropskog suda za ljudska prava
Evropski sud za ljudska prava u 50 pitanja
Glosar Evropske Konvencije o ljudskim pravima
Nacionalna mreža sudija i tužilaca za primenu standarda Evropskog suda za ljudska prava
Preuzmite presudu u pdf formatu
VIJEĆE EUROPE
EUROPSKI SUD ZA LJUDSKA PRAVA
PRVI ODJEL
PREDMET ŠTITIĆ PROTIV HRVATSKE
(Zahtjev br. 29660/03)
PRESUDA
STRASBOURG
8. studenoga 2007.
Ova će presuda postati konačnom pod okolnostima utvrđenim u članku 44. stavku 2. Konvencije. Može biti podvrgnuta uredničkim izmjenama.
U predmetu Štitić protiv Hrvatske, Europski sud za ljudska prava (Prvi odjel), zasjedajući u vijeću u sastavu:
g. C.L. ROZAKIS, predsjednik,
g. L. LOUCAIDES,
gđa N. VAJIĆ,
gđa E. STEINER,
g. K. HAJIYEV,
g. D. SPIELMANN,
g. G. MALINVERNI, suci,
i g. S. NIELSEN, tajnik Odjela,
nakon vijećanja zatvorenog za javnost 11. listopada 2007., donosi sljedeću presudu koja je usvojena tog datuma:
POSTUPAK
Postupak u ovome predmetu pokrenut je na temelju zahtjeva (br. 29660/03) protiv Republike Hrvatske kojeg je 1. rujna 2003. hrvatski državljanin g. Vladimir Štitić ("podnositelj zahtjeva") podnio Sudu na temelju članka 34. Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda ("Konvencija").
Podnositelja zahtjeva, kojemu je bila dodijeljena pravna pomoć, zastupao je g. D. Plavec, odvjetnik iz Zagreba. Hrvatsku Vladu ("Vlada") zastupala je njena zastupnica, gđa Š. Stažnik.
Podnositelj zahtjeva osobito je naveo da su dva stegovna postupka protiv njega, jedan vođen u Kaznenom zavodu Lepoglava, a drugi u Zatvoru u Gospiću, bila nepoštena, da su opći uvjeti u Zatvoru u Gospiću i to što nije dobio odgovarajuću medicinsku skrb u vezi s ozljedom koju je zadobio doveli do ponižavajućeg postupanja, da mu je povrijeđeno pravo na dopisivanje i da nije imao djelotvorno pravno sredstvo u odnosu na svoje prigovore na temelju članka 3.
Dana 9. studenoga 2006. Sud je zahtjev proglasio djelomično nedopuštenim i odlučio Vladu obavijestiti o prigovorima glede poštenosti stegovnoga postupka koji se vodio protiv podnositelja zahtjeva u Kaznenom zavodu Lepoglava i u Zatvoru u Gospiću, prigovora glede općih uvjeta u Zatvoru u Gospiću i toga što navodno nije dobio odgovarajuću medicinsku skrb u vezi s ozljedom, te prigovora u vezi s poštivanjem njegove slobode dopisivanja i pomanjkanjem djelotvornog pravnog sredstva u odnosu na prigovore koje je Vladi uputio na temelju članka 3. Na temelju odredaba članka 29. stavka 3. Konvencije, Sud je odlučio istovremeno odlučiti o osnovanosti i dopuštenosti zahtjeva.
ČINJENICE
I. OKOLNOSTI PREDMETA
Podnositelj zahtjeva rođen je 1967. i trenutačno se nalazi na odsluženju zatvorske kazne u Zatvoru u Šibeniku.
Nakon što je osuđen za više kaznenih djela vezanih za zlouporabu droga, podnositelj zahtjeva je 11. studenoga 2002. upućen na odsluženje kazne u Kazneni zavod Lepoglava. Dana 29. srpnja 2004. premješten je u Zatvor u Gospiću.
A. Stegovni postupci protiv podnositelja zahtjeva
1. U Kaznenom zavodu Lepoglava
Dok je podnositelj zahtjeva bio na odsluženju kazne zatvora u Kaznenom zavodu Lepoglava, neutvrđenog su datuma zatvorske vlasti pokrenule stegovni postupak protiv njega. Rasprave su održane 10. i 13. listopada 2003. Na raspravama su bili prisutni i podnositelj zahtjeva i njegov punomoćnik. Podnositelj zahtjeva i četiri svjedoka osobno su dali iskaz. U rješenju voditelja stegovnog postupka od 14. listopada 2003. utvrđeno je da je 19. srpnja 2003. podnositelj držao zatvorenima vrata ćelije broj 9 i time spriječio pripadnika zatvorskoga osoblja da uđe u ćeliju i obavlja svoje dužnosti. Utvrđeno je da ponašanje podnositelja zahtjeva predstavlja povredu članka 145. stavka 3. (10) Zakona o izvršavanju kazne zatvora te mu je uvjetno izrečena mjera upućivanja u samicu na sedam dana, s time da je izvršenje mjere odgođeno na tri mjeseca. Rješenje je podnositelju zahtjeva dostavljeno 17. listopada 2003. u 14.45 sati. Neutvrđenog datuma dostavljeno je i njegovome punomoćniku. Punomoćnik podnositelja zahtjeva je u ponedjeljak 20. listopada 2003. podnio žalbu protiv tog rješenja.
U rješenju od 27. listopada 2003. sudac izvršenja Županijskoga suda u Varaždinu proglasio je žalbu nedopuštenom zbog nepravodobnosti. Sudac je presudio da je rok za podnošenje žalbe bio četrdeset i osam sati tako da je taj rok istekao 19. listopada 2003. u 14.45 sati unatoč činjenici da je taj dan bila nedjelja. Rok se nije mogao produžiti na prvi radni dan jer je bio određen u satima.
2. U Zatvoru u Gospiću
Tijekom boravka podnositelja zahtjeva u Zatvoru u Gospiću, zatvorske su vlasti protiv njega pokrenule stegovni postupak. Zatvorske su vlasti utvrdile da je 16. kolovoza 2004. podnositelj zahtjeva putem pisma što mu ga je poslala djevojka u zatvor pokušao prokrijumčariti opojnu drogu, što je predstavljalo stegovni prijestup iz članka 145. stavka 3. (11) Zakona o izvršavanju kazne zatvora. U svome rješenju od 2. studenoga 2004., voditelj stegovnoga postupka izrekao je podnositelju zahtjeva stegovnu mjeru koja se sastojala od ograničenja kretanja unutar zatvora i češćih dodira s vanjskim svijetom u razdoblju od tri mjeseca, uključujući i zabranu primanja paketa, počevši od 2. studenoga 2004.
U svojoj žalbi od 16. studenoga 2004., podnositelj zahtjeva je između ostalog naveo da nije prisustvovao zadnjoj raspravi pred stegovnim tijelima jer njegov odvjetnik nije bio nazočan. Podnositelj zahtjeva naveo je i da mu nije dostavljen zapisnik s te rasprave. Uz to je izjavio i da će njegov punomoćnik pobliže objasniti ta pitanja u posebnoj žalbi. Dana 16. studenoga 2004. punomoćnik je podnio posebnu žalbu u kojoj je osporio utvrđenje krivnje podnositelja zahtjeva i strogost izrečene stegovne mjere. Dana 18. studenoga 2004. sudac izvršenja Županijskoga suda u Gospiću odbio je žalbu. U rješenju su u određenoj mjeri analizirani dokazi izvedeni u stegovnome postupku, ali uopće nisu spomenute procesne manjkavosti zbog kojih je podnositelj zahtjeva prigovorio.
B. Boravak podnositelja zahtjeva u Zatvoru u Gospiću
1. Opći uvjeti boravka podnositelja zahtjeva u Zatvoru u Gospiću
(a) Tvrdnje podnositelja zahtjeva
(b) Tvrdnje Vlade
Prema tvrdnjama Vlade, glavna zgrada Zatvora u Gospiću izgrađena je 1878., a obnovljena je 1995. U njoj su se nalazila dva odjela. Na prvome odjelu ("Odjel 1") nalazile su se peterokrevetne ćelije, dok su na drugome ("Odjel 2") bile dvokrevetne, a svaka je imala zahod. Na Odjelu 1 nalazio se dnevni boravak. Redovito se obavljala dezinfekcija i deratizacija. Odjeća i posteljina zatvorenika mogle su se svaki dan prati u zatvorskoj praonici. Posteljina se mijenjala jednom na tjedan.
Podnositelj zahtjeva došao je u Zatvor u Gospiću 29. srpnja 2004. Smješten je na Odjel 1, u poluotvoreni režim do 24. rujna 2004., kad je premješten na Odjel 2 u zatvoreni režim, u ćeliju dimenzija 3,75 x 3,5 metra sa sanitarnim čvorom dimenzija 2 x 1,6 metra koji je dijelio s još jednim zatvorenikom. U studenome 2005. vraćen je na Odjel 1 u ćeliju dimenzija 7,15 x 3,7 metra sa sanitarnim čvorom dimenzija 1,6 x 1,5 metra, koju je ponekad dijelio s tri do četiri zatvorenika. Tamo je boravio do 17. ožujka 2006., kad je vraćen na Odjel 2 zbog incidenta vezanog za tučnjavu s jednim zatvorenikom. Tamo je boravio do svibnja 2006. kad je premješten u Zatvor u Puli. Tijekom boravka na Odjelu 2 podnositelj zahtjeva bio je cijelo vrijeme zaključan u ćeliji osim sat vremena u jutarnjim satima, kad mu je bilo dopušteno izaći u dvorište, i dva sata između 20.00 i 22.00 sata, kad mu je bilo dopušteno gledati televizijski program, čitati ili igrati igre u zajedničkoj prostoriji. Tijekom boravka na Odjelu 1 podnositelj zahtjeva radio je četiri sata na dan.
2. Medicinska pomoć pružena podnositelju zahtjeva
(a) Tvrdnje podnositelja zahtjeva
(b) Tvrdnje Vlade
3. Pravna sredstva što ih je podnositelj zahtjeva iskoristio
Dana 14. rujna 2004. podnositelj zahtjeva podnio je pritužbu sucu izvršenja Županijskoga suda u Gospiću u kojoj se žalio na uvjete u zatvoru i u kojoj je naveo da mu nije isporučen paket s tri "šteke" cigareta, dva časopisa o automobilima i jednom bilježnicom što su mu ga 30. kolovoza 2004. poslali roditelji, već da je taj paket vraćen njegovim roditeljima koji su ga o tome i obavijestili.
Dana 21. rujna 2004. sudac je od zatvorskih vlasti Zatvora u Gospiću zatražio očitovanje o pritužbi o navodnom neuručivanju paketa. U svome dopisu zatvorskim vlastima od 24. rujna 2004. sudac je konstatirao da upravitelj zatvora zatvoreniku ima pravo privremeno uskratiti primanje paketa iz zdravstvenih i sigurnosnih razloga te da se taj zatvorenik ima obavijestiti o takvoj odluci i razlozima za njeno donošenje. Podnositelj zahtjeva dobio je presliku tog dopisa.
Dana 21. listopada 2004. podnositelj zahtjeva podnio je još jednu pritužbu sucu izvršenja Županijskoga suda u Gospiću u kojoj je ponovio svoje prigovore o uvjetima u zatvoru, ustvrdivši i da šest do osam pisama koje je poslao raznim osobama nikada nije bilo isporučeno primateljima. Sudac je na navode podnositelja zahtjeva odgovorio dopisom od 8. studenoga 2004. u kojemu je istaknuo da su ga zatvorske vlasti Zatvora u Gospiću izvijestile da su sva njegova pisma uredno otpremljena, te je podnositelja zahtjeva uputio da pisma ubuduće šalje isključivo preporučeno. Što se tiče podnositeljevih prigovora glede uvjeta u zatvoru, sudac je izričito naveo da nije nadležan za nadzor nad upravljanjem zatvorima.
Nakon incidenta 17. ožujka 2006. podnositelj zahtjeva opet je premješten na Odjel 2, a upravitelj zatvora naložio je da se protiv njega pokrene stegovni postupak. Neutvrđenog se datuma podnositelj zahtjeva žalio protiv te odluke, tvrdeći da je bio napadnut od drugog zatvorenika koji ga je dvaput udario u glavu. Podnositelj zahtjeva prigovorio je i da medicinska pomoć koja mu je bila pružena nije bila dostatna jer mu je liječnik prepisao samo sredstva protiv bolova, a nije obavio dodatne pretrage. Bio mu je odbijen zahtjev da ga se pošalje na rendgensko snimanje na njegov vlastiti trošak. Dana 23. ožujka 2006. sudac izvršenja Županijskoga suda u Gospiću odbio je žalbu podnositelja zahtjeva iz razloga što je odluka o stavljanju podnositelja pod zatvoreni režim bila utemeljena na zakonu i što je bila posljedica njegovoga ponašanja kojim je ugrozio red i sigurnost u zatvoru. Nije se očitovao o navodima podnositelja zahtjeva glede nepružanja odgovarajuće medicinske pomoći.
Dana 27. ožujka 2006. podnositelj zahtjeva žalio se protiv sučeve odluke izvanraspravnom vijeću Županijskoga suda u Gospiću. U svojoj je žalbi prigovorio zbog uvjeta na Odjelu 2 (vidi točku 11. ove presude). Vijeće je 28. ožujka 2006. odbilo podnositeljevu žalbu navodeći da je jedini način sprječavanja njegovoga daljnjeg neprihvatljivog ponašanja bio da ga se izolira. Nisu se očitovali na podnositeljev prigovor koji se odnosio na uvjete na Odjelu 2.
II. MJERODAVNO DOMAĆE PRAVO
"Nitko ne smije biti podvrgnut bilo kakvu obliku zlostavljanja …"
PRITUŽBA ZATVORENIKA
Članak 15.
"(1) Zatvorenik ima pravo pritužbe na postupak i odluku zaposlenika kaznionice, odnosno zatvora.
(2) Pritužba se podnosi usmeno ili pisanim putem upravitelju kaznionice, odnosno zatvora (u daljnjem tekstu: upravitelj), sucu izvršenja ili Središnjem uredu Uprave za zatvorski sustav. Pisana pritužba sucu izvršenja ili Središnjem uredu Uprave za zatvorski sustav upućuje se u omotu koji uprava kaznionice, odnosno zatvora ne smije otvoriti …."
SUDSKA ZAŠTITA PROTIV POSTUPKA I ODLUKE UPRAVE KAZNIONICE, ODNOSNO ZATVORA
Članak 17.
"(1) Protiv postupka i odluke kojom se zatvorenik nezakonito prikraćuje ili ograničava u nekom pravu iz ovoga Zakona zatvorenik može podnijeti zahtjev za sudsku zaštitu.
(2) O zahtjevu za sudsku zaštitu odlučuje sudac izvršenja."
POSTUPAK S OSOBNIM STVARIMA
Članak 60.
"…
(3) Stvari za koje se sumnja da su u svezi s počinjenjem nekoga kaznenog djela oduzet će se od zatvorenika i uz zapisnik predati nadležnom državnom tijelu. Stvari za koje se sumnja da su namijenjene bijegu zatvorenika, ugrožavanju reda i sigurnosti, te stvari za koje se sumnja da mogu narušiti zdravlje oduzet će se i uništiti ili predati nadležnom državnom tijelu, o čemu će se sastaviti zapisnik. Primjerak zapisnika uručuje se zatvoreniku."
SMJEŠTAJ, OPREMA I PREHRANA ZATVORENIKA
Članak 74.
"(1) Smještaj zatvorenika treba odgovarati zdravstvenim, higijenskim i prostornim zahtjevima, te klimatskim prilikama.
(2) Zatvorenika se u pravilu smješta u zasebnu prostoriju ….
(3) Prostorije u kojima borave zatvorenici moraju biti čiste, suhe i dovoljno prostrane. Za svakog zatvorenika u spavaonici mora biti najmanje 4 m2 i 10 m3 prostora.
(4) Svaka prostorija …. mora imati dnevno i umjetno svjetlo ….
(5) Kaznionice i zatvori moraju imati sanitarne uređaje koji omogućuju obavljanje fizioloških potreba u čistim i primjerenim uvjetima kad god to zatvorenici žele.
(6) Pitka voda uvijek mora biti dostupna svakom zatvoreniku"
ZAŠITA ZDRAVLJA
Članak 103.
"(1) Zatvoreniku se osigurava liječenje i redovita briga o tjelesnom i duševnom zdravlju …"
OBVEZAN LIJEČNIČKI PREGLED
Članak 104.
"…
(2) Zatvorenika koji je bolestan ili ozlijeđen, … liječnik je obvezan pregledati i poduzeti sve potrebno da se bolest spriječi, liječi ili ne pogorša."
SPECIJALISTIČKI PREGLED
Članak 107.
"(1) Zatvorenik ima pravo tražiti pregled liječnika specijalista ako takav pregled nije odredio liječnik kaznionice, odnosno zatvora.
…"
PAKETI
Članak 126.
"(1) Zatvorenik ima pravo najmanje jedanput mjesečno i prigodom blagdana primiti paket s dopuštenim stvarima.
(2) Pošiljatelj paketa obvezan je uz paket priložiti popis sadržaja.
(3) Paket otvara i pregledava ovlaštena službena osoba u nazočnosti zatvorenika. (4) S nedopuštenim, pokvarenim ili opasnim sadržajem paketa postupit će se u skladu sa člankom 60. stavkom 3. ovoga Zakona.
(5) Primitak paketa upravitelj može privremeno uskratiti iz zdravstvenih i sigurnosnih razloga, o čemu će obavijestiti zatvorenika. Protiv odluke upravitelja zatvorenik ima pravo žalbe sucu izvršenja. Žalba ne zadržava izvršenje."
STEGOVNI PRIJESTUPI, MJERE I POSTUPAK
Članak 145.
"…
(2) Lakši stegovni prijestupi jesu:
…
10) sprječavanje ovlaštene službene osobe ili bilo koje druge osobe koja je uključena u provedbu programa izvršavanja u obavljanju zadaća,
…
(3) Teži stegovni prijestupi jesu:
…
11) posjedovanje ili uzimanje bilo kojega opojnog ili psihoaktivnog sredstva,
…"
STEGOVNE MJERE
Članak 146.
"(1) Za počinjene stegovne prijestupe izriču se stegovne mjere.
(3) Stegovne mjere jesu:
1) ukor,
2) ograničenje ili privremena uskrata prava primitka paketa do tri mjeseca,
3) uskrata pojedinih ili svih pogodnosti iz članka 129. i 130. ovoga Zakona,
5) upućivanje u samicu do dvadeset jedan dan u slobodno vrijeme ili tijekom cijeloga dana i noći.
…"
PRAVO
I. NAVODNA POVREDA ČLANKA 3. KONVENCIJE
"Nitko se ne smije podvrgnuti mučenju ni nečovječnom ili ponižavajućem postupanju ili kazni."
A. Dopuštenost
Vlada je od Suda zatražila da te prigovore proglasi nedopuštenima zbog neiscrpljenja domaćih pravnih sredstava. Vlada je ustvrdila da Zakon o izvršavanju kazne zatvora iz 1999. predviđa cijeli niz pravnih sredstava za zaštitu prava osoba lišenih slobode, uključujući i sudsku zaštitu protiv postupaka i odluka uprave zatvora. Podnositelj zahtjeva svoje je prigovore prvo trebao iznijeti pred upravu zatvora. Ti su prigovori trebali biti jasno određeni. Podnositelj zahtjeva ih je, međutim, izravno uputio sucu izvršenja. Sudac izvršenja je podnositelja zahtjeva uputio da svoje prigovore prvo iznese pred upravu zatvora. Nadalje, pod pretpostavkom da se podnositeljevo pismo sucu izvršenja i sučev odgovor mogu smatrati postupkom u prvom stupnju, podnositelj zahtjeva mogao je uložiti žalbu izvanraspravnom vijeću nadležnoga županijskog suda. I konačno, podnositelj zahtjeva mogao je podnijeti ustavnu tužbu u odnosu na uvjete u zatvoru i sve ostale odluke donesene u bilo kojemu od stegovnih postupaka pokrenutih protiv njega.
Podnositelj zahtjeva ustvrdio je da je iscrpio sva pravna sredstva koja su mu bila na raspolaganju u domaćem pravnom sustavu u odnosu na navodne povrede.
Kad je riječ o pravnim sredstvima koja su podnositelju zahtjeva bila na raspolaganju na temelju Zakona o izvršavanju kazne zatvora, Sud primjećuje da članak 5. stavak 2. toga Zakona jasno predviđa da se pritužbe podnose usmeno ili pisanim putem upravitelju zatvora, sucu izvršenja ili Središnjem uredu Uprave za zatvorski sustav Ministarstva pravosuđa. Iz toga proizlazi da je podnositelj zahtjeva svoje pritužbe mogao uputiti bilo kojemu od tih tijela, a on ih je odlučio uputiti sucu izvršenja. Prema mišljenju Suda, ta odluka bila je u skladu s domaćim zakonodavstvom. Međutim, sudac nije pokrenuo nikakav postupak na temelju podnositeljeve pritužbe niti je o njoj donio ikakvu odluku. Umjesto toga, on je podnositelju zahtjeva odgovorio putem dopisa, prvog 24. rujna 2004. i drugog 8. studenoga 2004. Kad je riječ o Vladinoj tvrdnji da je podnositelj zahtjeva mogao uložiti žalbu protiv odluke suca izvršenja, Sud primjećuje da sudac izvršenja nije donio nikakvu odluku i da nije moguće uložiti žalbu protiv dopisa.
Kad je riječ o mogućnosti podnošenja ustavne tužbe glede uvjeta u zatvoru, Sud opaža da pravilo iscrpljenja domaćih pravnih sredstava sadržano u članku 35. stavku 1. Konvencije nalaže da podnositelj zahtjeva treba imati redovni put do pravnih sredstava koja su dostupna i dovoljna da osiguraju zadovoljštinu u odnosu na navodne povrede. Postojanje takvih pravnih sredstava mora biti dovoljno izvjesno ne samo u teoriji, već i u praksi, a ako to nije tako, tada će tim pravnim sredstvima nedostajati potrebna dostupnost i učinkovitost. Vlada koja se poziva na neiscrpljenje dužna je uvjeriti Sud da je pravno sredstvo bilo djelotvorno i u relevantno vrijeme raspoloživo u teoriji i praksi, drugim riječima, da je bilo dostupno, sposobno pružiti zadovoljštinu u odnosu na prigovore podnositelja zahtjeva, te da je imalo razumne izglede za uspjeh (vidi, između mnogih izvora prava, presudu u predmetu Akdivar and Others v. Turkey od 16. rujna 1996., Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, str. 1210-11, §§ 65 i 68).
Kad je riječ o ovome predmetu, Sud primjećuje da se, prema utvrđenoj praksi Ustavnoga suda, nedopuštenima proglašavaju one ustavne tužbe koje se ne tiču merituma dotičnoga predmeta. S obzirom na takvu praksu i činjenicu da se Vlada pred Sudom nije pozvala na sudsku praksu kojom bi potkrijepila svoju tvrdnju o dostatnosti i djelotvornosti tog pravnog sredstva, te ovom prilikom ne uzimajući u obzir pitanje primjerenosti ustavne tužbe kao pravnog sredstva sposobnog pružiti zadovoljštinu u odnosu na prigovor podnositelja zahtjeva, Sud zaključuje da ustavna tužba o uvjetima u zatvoru nije pravno sredstvo čije je postojanje utvrđeno s dovoljnom izvjesnošću.
Sud nalazi da se, time što je podnio pritužbu nadležnom sucu izvršenja, podnositelj zahtjeva na primjeren način poslužio pravnim sredstvima predviđenim domaćim pravom koja su mu bila na raspolaganju u odnosu na njegove prigovore glede neodgovarajućih uvjeta u zatvoru i nepružanja odgovarajuće medicinske pomoći. Prema tome, ti se prigovori ne mogu odbaciti s osnove neiscrpljenja domaćih pravnih sredstava.
Sud primjećuje da ti prigovori nisu očigledno neosnovani u smislu članka 35. stavka 3. Konvencije. Sud primjećuje da oni nisu nedopušteni ni po kojoj drugoj osnovi. Stoga se moraju proglasiti dopuštenima.
B. Osnovanost
a. Tvrdnje stranaka
Vlada je ustvrdila da svaka ćelija u Zatvoru u Gospiću ima zahod, a svaki odjel zajedničku kupaonicu. Stoga je tvrdnja podnositelja zahtjeva da je bio smješten u ćeliju bez zahoda neutemeljena. Posteljina se mijenjala jednom na tjedan. To je prema mišljenju Vlade bilo dovoljno, tako da nisu osnovani ni njegovi navodi o prljavoj posteljini. Kad je riječ o hrani koja se posluživala, prigovor podnositelja zahtjeva bio je općenite naravi i ničim potkrijepljen. Vlada je navela da se hrana priprema prema uobičajenom režimu prehrane. U sastavljanje jelovnika uključen je i predstavnik zatvorenika. Ostali zatvorenici nisu imali primjedaba na kakvoću hrane, pa je prigovor podnositelja u tom pogledu također neosnovan. Kad je riječ o higijenskim potrepštinama, Vlada je priznala da ih podnositelj nije dobivao. Međutim, tijekom boravka na Odjelu 1 Zatvora u Gospiću, podnositelj zahtjeva je radio i od toga ostvarivao određeni dohodak, pa je stoga bio u mogućnosti kupiti potrebne higijenske potrepštine. Kad je riječ o podnositeljevim općenitim prigovorima o pomanjkanju odgovarajuće medicinske skrbi u zatvoru, Vlada je ustvrdila da je svaki dan u pripravnosti bio liječnik. Kad je riječ o podnositeljevim konkretnim navodima o tome da mu nije pružena odgovarajuća medicinska pomoć u vezi s ozljedom koju je pretrpio, Vlada je naglasila da dostavljena medicinska dokumentacija pokazuje da je podnositelja zahtjeva istoga dana pregledao liječnik, te da mu je prepisana odgovarajuća terapija. Liječnik je podnositelja zahtjeva pregledao i sutradan, a tri dana nakon incidenta podnositelj zahtjeva upućen je na specijalistički pregled u bolnicu. Tom je prigodom obavljeno i rendgensko snimanje, a snimke nisu ukazivale na postojanje ikakvih fraktura.
Podnositelj zahtjeva ostao je kod svojih navoda. Tvrdio je da je njegov opis uvjeta boravka u zatvoru i nepružanja medicinske pomoći točan (vidi točke 11. i 14. ove presude).
b. Ocjena Suda
(a) Domašaj pitanja koja su predmet rasprave
- prvo, jesu li uvjeti boravka podnositelja zahtjeva u zatvoru bili u skladu s tom odredbom; i
- drugo, je li podnositelju zahtjeva pružena odgovarajuća medicinska skrb u vezi s ozljedom što ju je pretrpio 17. ožujka 2006.
(b) Opća načela ugrađena u sudsku praksu
Sud ponavlja da je u članak 3. Konvencije ugrađena jedna od najvažnijih temeljnih vrijednosti demokratskoga društva. Taj članak u apsolutnom smislu zabranjuje mučenje ili nehumano ili ponižavajuće postupanje ili kažnjavanje, bez obzira na okolnosti i ponašanje žrtve (vidi Labita v. Italy [GC], br. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
Osim toga, Sud ponavlja da, prema njegovoj sudskoj praksi, da bi nedopušteno postupanje potpalo pod domašaj članka 3. Konvencije, ono mora doseći minimalni stupanj težine. Ocjena tog minimalnog stupnja je relativna; ona ovisi o svim okolnostima predmeta, kao što su trajanje postupanja, njegove tjelesne i duševne posljedice, a u nekim slučajevima i spol, dob i zdravstveno stanje žrtve. Nadalje, kad bude razmatrao je li određeno postupanje "ponižavajuće" u smislu članka 3., Sud će uzeti u obzir u obzir je li mu cilj bio poniziti i omalovažiti žrtvu i je li, kad je riječ o njegovim posljedicama, ono negativno utjecalo na žrtvinu ličnost na način nespojiv s člankom 3. (Peers v. Greece, br. 28524/95, §§ 67-68, 74, ECHR 2001-III i Valašinas v. Lithuania, br. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
Sud je dosljedno naglašavao da trpljenje i poniženje o kojemu je riječ u dotičnom slučaju mora u svakom slučaju ići preko onog neizbježnog elementa trpljenja ili poniženja koje je povezano s danim oblikom legitimnog postupanja ili kažnjavanja. Mjere kojima se osoba lišava slobode često mogu uključivati takav element. Prema toj odredbi, država se mora pobrinuti da se osoba liši slobode u uvjetima u kojima se poštuje njeno ljudsko dostojanstvo, da ju način i metoda izvršenja mjere ne izlažu nelagodi ili trpljenju onog intenziteta koji bi prelazio neizbježnu razinu trpljenja inherentnu lišenju slobode, te da, s obzirom na praktične zahtjeve boravka u zatvoru, njezino zdravlje i dobrobit budu odgovarajuće osigurani. između ostalog i na način da joj se pruži potrebna medicinska pomoć (vidi Kudła v. Poland [GC], br. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI i McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom,br. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003-V).
(c) Primjena u ovome predmetu
(i) Opći uvjeti u Zatvoru u Gospiću
Sud primjećuje da su u ovome predmetu među strankama sporni stvarni uvjeti boravka podnositelja zahtjeva u Zatvoru u Gospiću. Međutim, Sud u ovome predmetu ne smatra potrebnim utvrđivati istinitost svakog pojedinog navoda stranaka, jer može utvrditi povredu članka 3. na temelju činjenica koje je tužena država iznijela ili ih nije osporila, i to iz sljedećih razloga.
Sud primjećuje da iz Vladinoga očitovanja proizlazi da je u razdoblju od otprilike petnaest mjeseci (od 29. rujna 2004. do studenoga 2005., i onda ponovno od ožujka do svibnja 2006.) podnositelj zahtjeva držan na Odjelu 2 Zatvora u Gospiću gdje je bio zaključan u ćeliji s još jednim zatvorenikom cijelo vrijeme osim jedan sat ujutro, kad mu je bilo dopušteno izaći vani, i dva sata navečer, kad mu je bilo dopušteno gledati televizijski program, čitati ili igrati igre. Nadalje, Vlada nije osporila podnositeljeve navode da je ćelija bila veoma vlažna, madraci toliko stari i pohabani da su iz njih virile gole žice, grijanje neprimjereno, te da u ćeliji nije bilo dnevnoga svjetla. Nije bilo sporno ni da podnositelj zahtjeva nije dobivao higijenske potrepštine.
Sud ne nalazi potrebnim dalje ispitivati uvjete boravka podnositelja zahtjeva u zatvoru jer su naprijed izneseni razlozi dovoljni za utvrđenje povrede članka 3. Konvencije.
Sud prihvaća da u ovome predmetu nema naznake da je postojala pozitivna namjera poniziti ili omalovažiti podnositelja zahtjeva. Međutim, iako pitanje je li svrha postupanja bila poniziti ili omalovažiti žrtvu predstavlja čimbenik kojega je potrebno uzeti u obzir, ako takve svrhe nema to ne može isključiti utvrđenje povrede članka 3. (vidi Peers, naprijed citirano, § 74 i Romanov v. Russia, br. 63993/00, § 80, 20. listopada 2005.). Sud smatra da su naprijed opisani uvjeti boravka u zatvoru u kojima je podnositelj zahtjeva držan oko petnaest mjeseci, morali štetno djelovati na njegovo ljudsko dostojanstvo. U svjetlu naprijed navedenoga, Sud nalazi da su uvjeti boravka podnositelja zahtjeva u zatvoru, a osobito činjenica da je bio zaključan u vlažnoj ćeliji bez dnevnoga svjetla oko dvadeset sati na dan, morali štetno utjecati na dobrobit podnositelja zahtjeva, te da ti uvjeti u kombinaciji s duljinom razdoblja u kojemu je podnositelj zahtjeva u njima boravio predstavljaju ponižavajuće postupanje.
(ii) Nepružanje odgovarajuće medicinske pomoći u vezi s podnositeljevom ozljedom
Sud na početku konstatira da nije sporno da je podnositelj zahtjeva ozlijeđen 17. ožujka 2005. Međutim, stranke se ne slažu u vezi s time je li medicinska pomoć koja je podnositelju zahtjeva pružena nakon ozljede bila odgovarajuća i dostatna. Sud primjećuje da dostavljena medicinska dokumentacija pokazuje da je podnositelj zahtjeva toga istog dana otišao kod zatvorskoga liječnika i da se žalio na vrtoglavicu i glavobolju. Liječnik mu je prepisao sredstva protiv bolova. Isti je liječnik podnositelja zahtjeva ponovno pregledao sutradan. Dana 20. ožujka 2005. podnositelj zahtjeva odveden je u Opću bolnicu Gospić jer se žalio na bol u leđima. Obavljeno je rendgensko snimanje, ali nisu uočene nikakve frakture. Podnositelju zahtjeva prepisana su dodatna sredstva protiv bolova i gel za ublažavanje boli.
Prema mišljenju suda, medicinska pomoć pružena podnositelju zahtjeva bila je primjerena i dostatna. U tom pogledu Sud osobito ukazuje na to da je podnositelj zahtjeva prigovorio da je zatražio rendgensko snimanje, ali da mu je to bilo uskraćeno. Međutim, medicinska dokumentacija jasno pokazuje da je rendgensko snimanje obavljeno. Kako nisu ustanovljene frakture, liječenje se ograničilo na sredstva protiv bolova, što se čini primjerenim, osobito ako se ima na umu činjenica da se podnositelj zahtjeva dalje nije žalio u vezi sa svojim zdravljem.
Naprijed izneseni razlozi dostatni su da Sudu omoguće zaključiti da nije došlo do povrede članka 3. Konvencije u pogledu medicinske pomoći koja je podnositelju zahtjeva pružena u vezi s ozljedom što ju je pretrpio 17. ožujka 2005.
II. NAVODNA POVREDA ČLANKA 6. STAVKA 1. KONVENCIJE
Članak 6. stavak 1
"Radi utvrđivanja svojih prava i obveza građanske naravi….svatko ima pravo…da sud…u razumnom roku ispita njegov slučaj."
Vlada je ustvrdila da prema domaćemu pravu, postupak o kojemu je riječ nedvojbeno potpada u područje stegovnog prava. Među stegovnim prijestupima navedenim u članku 145. Zakona o izvršavanju kazne zatvora nalazila su se kako nezakonita postupanja koja su mogla predstavljati povrede stegovnih pravila u zatvoru, tako i ona koja su mogla predstavljati kaznena djela. Kad je riječ o propisanim sankcijama, one su bili čisto stegovne naravi. Vlada je zaključno ustvrdila da članak 6. nije primjenjiv na stegovne postupke vođene protiv podnositelja zahtjeva.
Podredno, kad je riječ o postupku vođenom u vezi s prijestupom počinjenim tijekom boravka podnositelja zahtjeva u Kaznenom zavodu Lepoglava, Vlada je smatrala da podnositelj zahtjeva nije dokazao da su bilo on ili njegov punomoćnik pokušali podnijeti žalbu u nedjelju. Podnositelj zahtjeva se nalazio u Kaznenom zavodu Lepoglava gdje je svoju žalbu mogao predati nekome od zatvorskoga osoblja u bilo koje doba. Prema domaćemu pravu, to bi bilo dovoljno da se poštuje propisani rok.
Kad je riječ o postupku vođenom protiv podnositelja zahtjeva na temelju optužbe u vezi s posjedovanjem droge u Zatvoru u Gospiću, Vlada je navela da su odluke donesene u tom postupku bile odgovarajuće i dostatno obrazložene. Vlada je nadalje naglasila da je u svojoj žalbi podnositelj zahtjeva tek usput spomenuo da nije prisustvovao zadnjoj raspravi te da je naveo da će njegov punomoćnik pobliže objasniti ta pitanja u posebnoj žalbi. Punomoćnik, međutim, to nije učinio.
Podnositelj zahtjeva nije iznio nikakve tvrdnje glede o primjenjivosti članka 6., već je ponovio svoje prvotne prigovore glede poštenosti oba stegovna postupka vođena protiv njega.
Sud prvo treba ispitati pitanje primjenjivosti članka 6. na oba postupka. Sud ponavlja da se prema njegovoj stalnoj sudskoj praksi, članak 6. u načelu ne primjenjuje na stegovne postupke osim ako, uzimajući u obzir autonomiju pojma "kaznena optužba", dotični stegovni prijestup ne potpada u kaznenu sferu (vidi Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, presuda od 8. lipnja 1976., Serija A br. 22, str. 33-35, § 80-82; Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, presuda od 28. lipnja 1984., Serija A br. 80, str. 34-38, §§ 66-73; te Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], br. 39665/98 i 40086/98, § 82, ECHR 2003-X).
Da bi se odredilo je li članak 6. stavak 1. primjenjiv sa svoje "kaznene" osnove, Sud mora uzeti u obzir tri alternativna kriterija utvrđena u njegovoj sudskoj praksi, a to je pravna kvalifikacija prijestupa prema domaćemu pravu, narav prijestupa, te narav i stupanj strogosti sankcije (vidi Campbell and Fell, naprijed citirano, str. 34 et seq., §§ 67 et seq.).
Što se tiče prvog spomenutog kriterija jasno je da prema hrvatskome pravu prijestupi koji su se podnositelju zahtjeva stavljali na teret u Kaznenom zavodu Lepoglava i u Zatvoru u Gospiću pripadaju području stegovnoga prava.
U odnosu na postupak u Kaznenom zavodu Lepoglava, Sud primjećuje da članak 145. (2) (10) Zakona o izvršavanju kazne zatvora predviđa da takvo ponašanje zatvorenika predstavlja lakši stegovni prijestup. Sud nalazi da je taj prijestup bio stegovne naravi, s obzirom da je bila riječ o povredi pravila koja uređuju upravljanje zatvorom.
Kad je riječ o izrečenoj sankciji, Sud primjećuje da je podnositelj zahtjeva kažnjen upućivanjem u samicu na sedam dana, s time da bi se ta kazna izvršila jedino ako bi podnositelj zahtjeva u sljedeća tri mjeseca počinio neki drugi stegovni prijestup.
Sud podsjeća da je u presudi u predmetu Engle and Others (naprijed citirano, str. 35, § 82) naveo da mjera lišenja slobode koja se može izreći kao kazna u načelu predstavlja sankciju koja pripada "kaznenoj" sferi. Međutim, u ovome predmetu pravna osnova za lišenje podnositelja zahtjeva slobode bila je njegova izvorna osuda za kaznena djela. Iako je stegovna sankcija dodala novi element – upućivanje u samicu na sedam dana – ona ni na koji način nije produljila podnositeljevu zatvorsku kaznu. Osim toga, strogost sankcije ublažena je time što je bila riječ o uvjetnoj sankciji. Sud, stoga, smatra da narav i strogost izrečene kazne nisu bili takvi da bi zbog njih dotična stvar potpala u "kaznenu" sferu.
U odnosu na postupak vođen protiv podnositelja zahtjeva u Zatvoru u Gospiću, Sud primjećuje da je podnositelj zahtjeva bio optužen zbog pokušaja unošenja opojne droge u zatvor putem pisma što mu ga je poslala djevojka.
Kad je riječ o naravi prijestupa, prvo je potrebno konstatirati da prijestup koji se podnositelju zahtjeva stavljao na teret pripada stegovnome pravu: članak 145. (3) (11) Zakona o izvršavanju kazne zatvora predviđa da takvo ponašanje zatvorenika predstavlja teži stegovni prijestup. Međutim, prema sudskoj praksi suda, indikacije što ih na taj način pruža domaće pravo imaju samo relativnu vrijednost; važnija je sâma narav prijestupa (vidi Campbell and Fell, naprijed citirano, str. 36, § 71).
Sudska praksa Suda potvrđuje da je potrebno imati na umu da protupravno ponašanje zatvorenika može poprimiti različite oblike; za neke je akte jasno da ne predstavljaju više od pitanja unutarnje stege, dok se druge ne može promatrati u istome svjetlu. Kao prvo, neka pitanja mogu biti ozbiljnija od drugih. Kao drugo, protupravnost nekih akata možda ne ovisi o činjenici da su počinjeni u zatvoru: određeno ponašanje koje predstavlja stegovni prijestup može u isto vrijeme predstavljati i kazneno djelo. U okolnostima ovoga predmeta, ono odgovara kaznenom djelu zlouporabe opojnih droga iz članka 173. hrvatskoga Kaznenog zakona koje podrazumijeva i samo posjedovanje opojnih droga.
Međutim, činjenica da je prijestup o kojemu je riječ mogao biti predmet i kaznenog postupka i stegovnog postupka u zatvoru Sudu nije dovoljna za zaključak da je članak 6. primjenjiv na taj postupak. U tom pogledu, Sud primjećuje da domaća tijela nisu pokrenula kazneni postupak protiv podnositelja zahtjeva, već su se odlučila za stegovni postupak. Stoga je potrebno pozabaviti se trećim kriterijem: naravi i stupnjem strogosti sankcije kojoj se podnositelj zahtjeva riskirao izvrgnuti (vidi Engel and Others, naprijed citirano, str. 34-35, § 82).
Sud primjećuje da je izrečenom sankcijom podnositelju zahtjeva bilo ograničeno slobodno kretanje unutar zatvora i kontakt s vanjskim svijetom u razdoblju od tri mjeseca. U tom pogledu Sud primjećuje da je potreba izricanja stegovnih sankcija za povrede zatvorske stege bitan element održavanja odgovarajućeg zatvorskog režima. Sud naglašava važnost očuvanja djelotvornog sustava reda i kontrole u zatvoru. Sankcija izrečena podnositelju zahtjeva za veoma tešku povredu zatvorske stege nije produljila trajanje njegove zatvorske kaznu (vidi, a contrario, Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], br. 39665/98 i 40086/98, ECHR 2003-X), niti mu je ozbiljnije otežala uvjete boravka u zatvoru. Njome su podnositelju zahtjeva bile ograničene slobode unutar zatvora na ograničeno vremensko razdoblje. Prema mišljenju Suda, ta je sankcija u cijelosti ostala u "stegovnoj" sferi.
Sud, stoga, zaključuje da izrečena sankcija nije bila takve naravi niti strogosti zbog koje bi dotična stvar potpala u "kaznenu" sferu. Prema tome, članak 6. Konvencije nije primjenjiv u ovome predmetu.
III. NAVODNA POVREDA ČLANKA 8. KONVENCIJE
Članak 8.
"1. Svatko ima pravo na poštovanje svoga … dopisivanja.
2. Javna vlast se neće miješati u ostvarivanje tog prava, osim u skladu sa zakonom i ako je u demokratskom društvu nužno radi interesa državne sigurnosti, javnog reda i mira, ili gospodarske dobrobiti zemlje, te radi sprečavanja nereda ili zločina, radi zaštite zdravlja ili morala ili radi zaštite prava i sloboda drugih."
(a) Paket što su ga podnositelju zahtjeva poslali roditelji
1. Dopuštenost
2. Osnovanost
Vlada je ustvrdila da su zabranu primanja paketa u razdoblju od tri mjeseca zatvorske vlasti izrekle podnositelju zahtjeva kao stegovnu mjeru zbog teške povrede zatvorskih pravila (krijumčarenje opojnih droga), te da ništa ne ukazuje na to da bi takvo miješanje u podnositeljevu slobodu dopisivanja bilo nerazmjerno legitimnom cilju koji se nastojao ostvariti.
Sud primjećuje da je 2. studenoga 2004. podnositelj zahtjeva kažnjen blažom stegovnom mjerom – ograničenjem kretanja unutar zatvora i kontakta s vanjskim svijetom u razdoblju od tri mjeseca, što je uključivalo i uskratu prava na primanje paketa u sljedeća tri mjeseca (vidi točku 9. ove presude). Razlog za tu kaznu, kao što je potvrdio i Županijski sud u Gospiću, bila je činjenica da je podnositelj zahtjeva u zatvor pokušao unijeti opojnu drogu, što predstavlja povredu članka 145. (3) (11) Zakona o izvršavanju kazne zatvora. Sud nalazi da je ta kazna predstavljala miješanje u podnositeljevo pravo na poštivanje slobode dopisivanja, u smislu članka 8. stavka 1 Konvencije.
Sud ponavlja da će "svako miješanje od strane javnih vlasti" u pravo na poštivanje slobode dopisivanja biti protivno članku 8. Konvencije osim ako nije "u skladu sa zakonom", ako se njime ne nastoji ostvariti jedan ili više legitimnih ciljeva spomenutih u stavku 2. toga članka, te ako nije "nužno u demokratskom društvu" radi njihovoga postizanja (vidi, između mnogih drugih izvora prava, sljedeće presude: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25. ožujka 1983., Serija A br. 61, str. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25. ožujka 1992., Serija A br. 233, str. 16, § 34; Niedbała v. Poland, br. 27915/95, § 78, 4. srpnja 2000.; te Klyakhin v. Russia, br. 46082/99, § 107, 30. studenoga 2004.).
Sud prvo mora razmotriti je li miješanje bilo "u skladu sa zakonom". Taj izraz kao prvo nalaže da sporna mjera treba biti utemeljena u domaćemu pravu; on se odnosi i na kvalitetu prava o kojemu je riječ, jer zahtijeva da ono bude dostupno dotičnoj osobi, koja, uz to, mora biti u mogućnosti predvidjeti njene posljedice za sebe, a mora biti i u skladu s vladavinom prava (vidi Kruslin v. France, presuda od 24. travnja 1990., Serija A br. 176-A, str. 20, § 27; Huvig v. France, Serija A br. 176-B, str. 52, § 26; te Dankevich v. Ukraine,br. 40679/98, § 152, 29. travnja 2003.).
Sud primjećuje da Zakon o izvršavanju kazne zatvora jasno predviđa da posjedovanje droge predstavlja teži stegovni prijestup, i da su stegovni prijestupi između ostalog kažnjivi i uskratom prava na primanje paketa u razdoblju do tri mjeseca. Zatvorenik kojemu je izrečena bilo koja od stegovnih mjera može podnijeti žalbu sucu izvršenja i potom se žaliti na sučevu odluku. Taj je Zakon objavljen u Narodnim novinama. Sud stoga smatra utvrđenim da je domaći zakon o kojemu je riječ u ovome predmetu formuliran dovoljno jasno i precizno da ispunjava zahtjev predvidivosti, te da je bio dostupan i da je omogućavao žalbu sudu. Prema tome, miješanje je bilo u skladu sa zahtjevom "zakonitosti" iz drugoga stavka članka 8. Primjećuje se i da je miješanje imalo legitimni cilj sprječavanja nereda i kriminala.
Kad je riječ o nužnosti miješanja, Sud smatra da uobičajeni i razumni zahtjevi izvršavanja kazne zatvora opravdavaju postojanje sustava izricanja stegovnih mjera onim zatvorenicima koji krše zatvorska pravila. Ako se taj cilj ima na umu, mjera kojom se nameću određena ograničenja zatvorenikovog prava na poštivanje njegove slobode dopisivanja može biti nužna i sama po sebi ne mora biti nespojiva s Konvencijom (vidi Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, Serija A br. 61, presuda od 25. ožujka 1983., str. 38, § 98, te, a contrario, Jankauskas v. Lithuania, br. 59304/00, presuda od 24. veljače 2005., §§ 21-22).
Što se tiče ovoga predmeta, Sud prvo primjećuje da je mjera o kojoj je riječ primijenjena u vezi s utvrđenjem podnositeljeve krivnje za veoma težak stegovni prijestup koji je u isto vrijeme bio i kriminalna djelatnost (posjedovanje opojne droge) i da je trajala ograničeno vremensko razdoblje (tri mjeseca). Kao drugo, Sud primjećuje da su podnositeljevi prigovori bili predmet sudskog preispitivanja pred Županijskim sudom u Gospiću (vidi točku 10. ove presude). Kao treće, podnositelj zahtjeva nije iznio nikakve argumente koji bi doveli u pitanje razmjernost izrečene mjere. Kao četvrto, sankcija izrečena podnositelju zahtjeva bila je blaže naravi. U konkretnim okolnostima ovoga predmeta, Sud smatra da vlasti nisu prešle granicu svoje slobode procjene u ovome predmetu, te da je miješanje bilo razmjerno i nužno u demokratskom društvu.
(b) Navodno neotpremanje podnositeljevih pisama primateljima od strane zatvorskih vlasti
Vlada je ustvrdila da su sva pisma što ih je podnositelj zahtjeva predao zatvorskim vlastima propisno otpremljena u poštanski ured. Uz to je naglasila da podnositelj zahtjeva nije dostavio nikakve pojedinosti o činjenicama zbog kojih je prigovarao.
Sud primjećuje da podnositelj zahtjeva nije pobliže naveo kada su i jesu li pisma predana zatvorskim vlastima i na koga su bila naslovljena. Nije dostavio ni informacije o tome kako je saznao da pisma nisu dospjela do primatelja. U tim okolnostima Sud smatra da se navodno miješanje nije moglo utvrditi s dovoljnom sigurnošću.
Iz toga slijedi da je ovaj prigovor očigledno neosnovan, pa se mora odbiti u skladu s člankom 35. stavcima 3. i 4. Konvencije.
IV. NAVODNA POVREDA ČLANKA 13. KONVENCIJE
"Svatko čija su prava i slobode koje su priznate u ovoj Konvenciji povrijeđene ima pravo na djelotvorna pravna sredstva pred domaćim državnim tijelom čak i u slučaju kad su povredu počinile osobe koje su djelovale u službenom svojstvu."
A. Dopuštenost
B. Osnovanost
Vlada je ustvrdila da je prema domaćem pravu osobama lišenim slobode na raspolaganju cijeli niz pravnih sredstava predviđenih Zakonu o izvršavanju kazne zatvora, kao što je pritužba upravi zatvora, sucu izvršenja ili Središnjem uredu Uprave za zatvorski sustav. Nadalje, podnositelj zahtjeva mogao je podnijeti i ustavnu tužbu.
Sud primjećuje da je, prema domaćem zakonodavstvu, podnositelj zahtjeva imao mogućnost podnijeti pritužbu glede uvjeta u zatvoru, nepružanja odgovarajuće medicinske pomoći, te glede nepoštivanja svoga prava na slobodu dopisivanja, i to zatvorskim vlastima, sucu izvršenja ili Središnjem uredu Uprave za zatvorski sustav, te da je podnositelj zahtjeva zapravo iskoristio jednu od tih mogućnosti, jer je, naime, podnio pritužbu nadležnom sucu izvršenja Županijskoga suda u Gospiću.
Sud podsjeća da je u svojoj djelomičnoj odluci o dopuštenosti u ovome predmetu (vidi Štitić v. Croatia (dec.), br. 9660/03, 9. studenoga 2006.)utvrdio da je podnositelj zahtjeva, čija je situacija u Kaznenome zavodu Lepoglava bila ispravljena odlukom suca izvršenja Županijskoga suda u Varaždinu i koji je, nakon takve odluke, premješten u primjerenu ćeliju, mogao podnijeti građansku tužbu protiv države i tražiti naknadu štete za dotad pretrpljene patnje. Iako se pokretanje građanskoga postupka samo po sebi nije moglo smatrati djelotvornim pravnim sredstvom za rješavanje loših uvjeta u zatvoru, takav postupak u kombinaciji s hitnom odlukom suca izvršenja, s trenutačnim djelovanjem na stvarne uvjete podnositelja zahtjeva, ispunio je zahtjeve djelotvornosti.
Međutim, kad je riječ o podnositeljevim pritužbama podnesenim 14. rujna i 21. listopada 2004. sucu izvršenja Županijskoga suda u Gospiću o općim uvjetima u Zatvoru u Gospiću (vidi točke 16. i 18. ove presude), Sud primjećuje da je u svome dopisu od 8. studenoga 2004. sudac izričito naveo da nije nadležan za nadzor nad upravljanjem zatvorima (vidi točku 18. ove presude).
Sud ponavlja da standardi članka 13. nalažu uvođenje domaćeg pravnog sredstva koje nadležnom domaćem tijelu pružaju mogućnost da u meritumu odluči o relevantnom prigovoru na temelju Konvencije i da osigura odgovarajuću pomoć, s time da države ugovornice imaju određeno diskrecijsko pravo glede načina na koji će udovoljiti svojim obvezama iz te odredbe (vidi Chahal v. the United Kingdom, presuda od 15. studenoga 1996., Reports 1996-V, str. 1869-70, § 145). Pravno sredstvo čije uvođenje nalaže članak 13. mora biti "djelotvorno" i u praksi i u pravu. Međutim, takvo je sredstvo potrebno samo za prigovore koji se mogu smatrati "dokazivima" na temelju Konvencije (vidi Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, br. 45701/99, § 137, ECHR 2001-XII).
U ovome predmetu, s obzirom na zaključak u vezi s člankom 3. (vidi točku 31. ove presude), Sud smatra da je prigovor podnositelja zahtjeva potaknuo pitanje poštivanja standarda Konvencije koji se odnose na uvjete u kojima je podnositelj držan na Odjelu 2 Zatvora u Gospiću. Podnositelj zahtjeva je stoga mogao očekivati da će se sudac izvršenja Županijskoga suda u Gospiću pozabaviti meritumom njegovoga prigovora i donijeti formalnu odluku u tom pogledu, što sudac nije učinio. Umjesto toga, on se proglasio nenadležnim.
Iako je istina da činjenica da određeno pravno sredstvo nije dovelo do povoljnog ishoda za podnositelja zahtjeva to sredstvo ne čini nedjelotvornim (vidi Kudła v. Poland [GC], br. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI), Sud zaključuje da je svojim postupanjem u okolnostima ovoga predmeta sudac izvršenja Županijskoga suda u Gospiću učinio nedjelotvornim inače djelotvorno pravno sredstvo. Taj zaključak, međutim, ne dovodi u pitanje ni djelotvornost pravnoga sredstva kao takvoga ni obvezu zatvorenika da nadležnome sucu izvršenja podnese pritužbu na temelju članaka 15. i 17. Zakona o izvršavanja kazne zatvora u svrhu iscrpljenja domaćih pravnih sredstava glede prigovora koji se tiču uvjeta boravka u zatvoru.
IV. PRIMJENA ČLANKA 41. KONVENCIJE
"Ako Sud utvrdi da je došlo do povrede Konvencije i dodatnih protokola, a unutarnje pravo zainteresirane visoke ugovorne stranke omogućava samo djelomičnu odštetu, Sud će, prema potrebi, dodijeliti pravednu naknadu povrijeđenoj stranci."
IZ TIH RAZLOGA, SUD JEDNOGLASNO
proglašava prigovore koji se tiču uvjeta boravka podnositelja zahtjeva u Zatvoru u Gospiću i navodnog nepružanja odgovarajuće medicinske pomoći u vezi s njegovom ozljedom, kao i prigovore koji se tiču povrede podnositeljevih prava na poštivanje slobode dopisivanja u dijelu u kojem se odnose na zabranu primanja paketa u razdoblju od tri mjeseca i pomanjkanje djelotvornog pravnog sredstva u odnosu na prigovor koji se tiče uvjeta u zatvoru dopuštenima, a ostatak zahtjeva nedopuštenim;
presuđuje da je došlo do povrede članka 3. Konvencije zbog uvjeta boravka podnositelja zahtjeva na Odjelu 2 Zatvora u Gospiću;
presuđuje da nije došlo do povrede članka 3. Konvencije zbog navodnog nepružanja odgovarajuće medicinske pomoći u vezi s podnositeljevom ozljedom;
presuđuje da nije došlo do povrede članka 8. Konvencije;
presuđuje da je došlo do povrede članka 13. Konvencije;
Sastavljeno na engleskome jeziku i otpravljeno u pisanom obliku dana 8. studenoga 2007. u skladu s pravilom 77. stavcima 2. i 3. Poslovnika Suda.
Søren NIELSEN Christos ROZAKIS
Tajnik Predsjednik
__________________________________________
Prevod presude preuzet sa stranice Zastupnika Republike Hrvatske pred Evropskim sudom za ljudska prava
https://uredzastupnika.gov.hr/
FIRST SECTION
(Application no. 29660/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 November 2007
FINAL
31/03/2008
This judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Štitić v. Croatia, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
Mrs N. Vajić,
Mrs E. Steiner,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
Mr G. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 11 October 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 29660/03) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Mr Vladimir Štitić (“the applicant”), on 1 September 2003.
2. The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr D. Plavec, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.
3. The applicant alleged, in particular, that two sets of disciplinary proceedings against him, one conducted in Lepoglava State Prison, and the other in Gospić Prison, had been unfair, that the general conditions in Gospić Prison and the lack of adequate medical care for an injury he had sustained there had amounted to degrading treatment, that his right to respect for his correspondence had been violated and that he lacked an effective remedy in respect of his Article 3 complaints.
4. On 9 November 2006 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaints concerning the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the applicant in Lepoglava State Prison and in Gospić Prison, the complaint concerning the general conditions in Gospić Prison and the alleged lack of adequate medical care for his injury, and the complaints concerning the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence and the lack of an effective remedy in respect of his Article 3 complaints to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
5. The applicant was born in 1967 and is presently serving a prison term in Šibenik Prison.
6. Following a series of criminal convictions for drug abuse, the applicant was sent to serve the sentence in Lepoglava State Prison (Kazneni zavod Lepoglava) on 11 November 2002. On 29 July 2004 he was transferred to Gospić Prison.
A. Disciplinary proceedings against the applicant
1. In Lepoglava State Prison
7. While the applicant was serving a prison term in Lepoglava State Prison, the prison authorities instituted disciplinary proceedings against him on an unspecified date. The hearings were held on 10 and 13 October 2003. Both the applicant and his counsel were present at the hearings. The applicant and four witnesses gave evidence in person. In the Head of the Disciplinary Proceedings' decision of 14 October 2003 it was established that on 19 July 2003 the applicant had held closed the door of cell no. 9 and had thus prevented a member of the prison staff from entering the cell and performing his duties. The applicant's conduct was found to be in breach of section 145 § 3(10) of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act (Zakon o izvršavanju kazne zatvora) and he was sentenced to seven days' solitary confinement suspended for three months. The decision was served on the applicant on 17 October 2003 at 2.45 p.m. It was also served on his counsel on an unspecified date. The applicant's counsel lodged an appeal against the decision on Monday, 20 October 2003.
8. In a decision of 27 October 2003 the Varaždin County Court judge responsible for the execution of sentences declared the appeal inadmissible as being out of time. The judge held that the time-limit for an appeal was forty-eight hours and that the time-limit had expired on 19 October 2003 at 2.45 p.m. despite the fact that this day had been a Sunday. The time-limit could not be extended to the first working day, since it had been fixed in hours.
2. In Gospić Prison
9. During his stay in Gospić Prison the prison authorities opened disciplinary proceedings against the applicant. The prison authorities found that on 16 August 2004 the applicant had attempted to smuggle illegal drugs into the prison via a letter sent to him by his girlfriend, which constituted a disciplinary offence under section 145 (3)(11) of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act. In his decision of 2 November 2004 the Head of Disciplinary Proceedings imposed on the applicant a disciplinary measure consisting of a restriction on his movement inside the prison and frequent contacts with the outside world for a period of three months, including a ban on receiving postal parcels, starting from 2 November 2004.
10. In an appeal of 16 November 2004 the applicant, inter alia, alleged that he had not attended the final hearing before the prison disciplinary authorities because his lawyer had not been present. The applicant also alleged that the notes of that hearing had not been served on him. He further stated that his counsel would elaborate on these issues in a separate appeal. On 16 November 2004 counsel lodged a separate appeal whereby he contested the findings of the applicant's guilt and the severity of the disciplinary measure imposed. On 18 November 2004 the Gospić County Court judge responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed the appeal. The decision analysed in some detail the evidence presented in the disciplinary proceedings but made no mention of the procedural defects complained of by the applicant.
B. The applicant's stay in Gospić Prison
1. General conditions of the applicant's stay in Gospić Prison
(a) The applicant's submissions
11. The applicant submitted that he had firstly been put in cell no. 5 in Unit 1. However, later on he had been moved to Unit 2. He alleged that the room had been very damp, and the mattresses old and torn so that bare wire stuck out. The bed sheets and pillowcases had been dirty and the blankets old and foul smelling. No daylight entered the cell and the electric light had to be switched on all day. He had been locked in his cell for twenty-one hours per day, with no contact with other prisoners or the outside world. He had been allowed two one-hour walks and one hour of exercise in a gym per day, both without the presence of any other prisoner. The rest of the time he had had to spend locked alone in his cell. He had not had regular access to a bathroom or running water and his access to sanitary facilities had been left to the discretion of the prison guards. The heating had been inadequate and the food of low quality. No toiletries had been provided to the applicant and no permanent doctor had been on duty in the prison. Only one doctor (a paediatrician) had come once in a while for an hour at a time.
(b) The Government's submissions
12. According to the Government, the main building of the Gospić Prison was built in 1878 and renovated in 1995. It comprised two units. The first (“Unit 1”) consisted of five-bed cells and the other (“Unit 2”) of two-bed cells, each equipped with a toilet. Inmates shared a communal bathroom. Unit 1 had a communal living-room. Disinfection and rat extermination were performed regularly. Inmates' clothes and bed sheets could be washed in the prison laundry every day. The bed sheets were changed once a week.
13. On 29 July 2004 the applicant had arrived at Gospić Prison. He had been put in Unit 1, under the “semi-open” prison regime until 24 September 2004 when he had been moved to Unit 2, under a higher security regime, to a cell measuring 3.75 x 3.5 metres and sanitary facilities measuring 2 x 1.6 metres, which he had shared with another inmate. In November 2005 he had been moved back to Unit 1 to a cell measuring 7.15 x 3.7 metres with sanitary facilities measuring 1.6 x 1.5 metres, which he had shared with three to four inmates at times. He had stayed there until 17 March 2006 when he had been moved back to Unit 2 due to an incident involving a fight with another inmate. He had stayed there until May 2006 when he had been transferred to Pula Prison. During his stay in Unit 2 the applicant had been locked in his cell save for one hour in the mornings when he had been allowed to go out in the courtyard and for two hours between 8 and 10 p.m. when he had been allowed to watch television, read or play games in a common room. During his stay in Unit 1 the applicant worked for four hours per day.
2. Medical assistance provided to the applicant
(a) The applicant's submissions
14. According to the applicant, on 17 March 2005 he had been injured by another prisoner who had struck him twice on the head. He had been taken to a doctor to whom he had complained of general sickness, dizziness and heavy thirst. However, the doctor had only prescribed painkillers and had not made any further examinations. The applicant had asked that an X-ray examination be carried out at his own expense, but this had been refused. He further alleged that he had a bruise under his left eye.
(b) The Government's submissions
15. According to the Government the applicant had been seen by the prison doctor the very same day and the following day. The doctor had prescribed painkillers. Following the applicant's further complaints of backache, he had been taken to the Gospić General Hospital and seen by a specialist. An X-ray examination had been carried out but no fractures had been identified. The applicant had been prescribed further painkillers to be taken orally and a soothing gel. The Government submitted a copy of the medical report from the Gospić General Hospital to confirm their submissions.
3. Remedies used by the applicant
16. On 14 September 2004 the applicant petitioned the Gospić County Court judge responsible for the execution of sentences, complaining about the prison conditions and also alleging that a postal parcel sent to him by his parents on 30 August 2004, containing three cartons of cigarettes, two magazines on motor cars and one notebook, had never been delivered but had instead been returned to his parents, who had informed the applicant about it.
17. On 21 September 2004 the judge requested the Gospić Prison authorities to comment on the complaint concerning the alleged non-delivery of the parcel. In his letter to the prison authorities of 24 September 2004, the judge noted that a prison governor was allowed to temporarily prohibit a prisoner from receiving parcels for health and security reasons and that the prisoner in question should be informed about such a decision and the reasons for it. The applicant received a copy of the letter.
18. The applicant again petitioned the Gospić County Court judge responsible for the execution of sentences on 21 October 2004, repeating his complaints about the prison conditions and further asserting that six to eight letters he had sent to various persons had never been delivered. The judge replied to the applicant's allegations by letter of 8 November 2004 stating that the Gospić Prison authorities had informed him that all his letters had been properly forwarded and instructed the applicant to send future letters via registered mail only. As to the applicant's complaints concerning the prison conditions, the judge expressly stated that he had no jurisdiction to supervise the running of prisons.
19. Following the incident of 17 March 2006, the applicant was moved back to Unit 2, and the Prison Governor ordered that disciplinary proceedings be instituted against him. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision, alleging that he had been attacked by another inmate who had struck him twice on the head. The applicant further complained that the medical assistance provided to him had been insufficient since the doctor had only prescribed him painkillers and had not made any further examinations. His request that an X-ray examination be carried out at his own expense had been refused. On 23 March 2006 the Gospić County Court judge responsible for the execution of sentences dismissed the applicant's appeal on the ground that the decision to place the applicant under the “closed prison regime” had been based in law and was a consequence of his conduct, which had endangered the order and security in the prison. No comment was made about the applicant's allegations concerning the lack of adequate medical assistance.
20. The applicant appealed against the judge's decision on 27 March 2006 to a three-judge panel of the Gospić County Court. In his appeal he complained about the conditions in Unit 2 (see paragraph 11 above). The panel dismissed the applicant's appeal on 28 March 2006 on the ground that the only way to prevent further unacceptable behaviour on his part had been his isolation. They made no remarks concerning the applicant's complaint about the conditions in Unit 2.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW
21. Article 23 of the Croatian Constitution (Ustav Republike Hrvatske) provides:
“No one shall be subjected to any form of ill-treatment ...”
22. The Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act (Zakon o izvršavanju kazne zatvora, Official Gazette no. 128/1999 of 30 November 1999, and no. 190/2003 of 3 December 2003 (consolidated text) – “the Act”) came into force on 1 July 2001, whereas the provisions concerning the judge responsible for the execution of sentences came into force six months later, on 1 January 2002. The relevant provisions of the Act read as follows:
COMPLAINTS
Section 15
“(1) Inmates shall have the right to complain about an act or decision of a prison employee.
(2) Complaints shall be lodged orally or in writing with a prison governor, a judge responsible for the execution of sentences or the Head Office of the Prison Administration. Written complaints addressed to a judge responsible for the execution of sentences or the Head Office of the Prison Administration shall be submitted in an envelope which the prison authorities may not open ...”
JUDICIAL PROTECTION AGAINST ACTS AND DECISIONS OF THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION
Section 17
“(1) An inmate may lodge a request for judicial protection against any acts or decisions unlawfully denying him, or limiting him in, any of the rights guaranteed by this Act.
(2) Requests for judicial protection shall be decided by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences.”
PROCEDURE FOR PERSONAL OBJECTS
Section 60
“...
(3) Objects suspected of being connected to a criminal offence shall be forfeited and a record thereof drawn up. These objects shall be handed over to the competent authority. Objects suspected of being designed to facilitate escape from a prison or endangering order and security and objects that may endanger health shall be forfeited, destroyed or handed over to the competent authority. A record of these acts shall be drawn up.”
ACCOMODATION, FURNISHINGS AND NUTRITION
Section 74
“(1) The accommodation of inmates shall meet the required standards in terms of health, hygiene and space, including climatic conditions.
(2) Inmates shall as a general rule be accommodated in separate rooms ...
(3) Inmates' rooms shall be clean, dry and of adequate size. Each inmate shall have at least 4 square metres and 10 cubic metres of space in the room.
(4) Every room ... must have daylight and artificial light ...
(5) Penitentiaries and prisons must be equipped with sanitary facilities allowing inmates to meet their physiological needs in clean and adequate conditions, whenever they wish to do so.
(6) Inmates shall have drinking water at their disposal at all times.”
HEALTH CARE
Section 103
“(1) Inmates shall be provided with medical treatment and regular care for their physical and mental health ...”
OBLIGATORY MEDCIAL EXAMINATION
Section 104
“...
(2) A doctor shall examine a sick or injured inmate ... and undertake all measures necessary to prevent or cure the illness and to prevent deterioration of the inmate's health.”
SPECIALIST EXAMINATION
Section 107
“(1) An inmate has the right to seek a specialist examination if such an examination has not been ordered by a prison doctor.
...”
POSTAL PARCELS
Section 126
“(1) An inmate has the right to receive a postal parcel containing authorised items at least once a month and during public holidays.
(2) The sender shall enclose a list of contents with the parcel.
(3) The parcel shall be opened and examined by a prison official in the presence of the inmate concerned.
(4) Unauthorised, stale and dangerous items shall be treated in the manner prescribed by section 60 (3) of this Act.
(5) The Prison Governor may temporarily ban reception of parcels for reasons of health or safety, of which the inmate concerned shall be informed. The inmate has the right of appeal to a judge responsible for the execution of sentences. The appeal does not have suspensive effect.”
DISCIPLINARY OFFENCES, MEASURES AND PROCEEDINGS
Section 145
“...
(2) Minor disciplinary offences are:
...
10) preventing an official or any other person involved in the implementation of the programme of execution [of prison sentences] from performing their duties;
...
(3) Grave disciplinary offences are:
...
11) possession or intake of any narcotic or psychoactive substance;
...”
DISCIPLINARY MEASURES
Section 146
“(1) Disciplinary offences are punishable with disciplinary measures.
(3) Disciplinary measures are:
1) an admonition;
2) restriction or prohibition on using money inside the prison for up to three months;
3) restriction or temporary deprivation of some or all privileges enumerated in sections 129 and 130 of this Act;
5) solitary confinement for up to twenty-one days during free time or during night and day;
...”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
23. The applicant complained about the general conditions in the Gospić Prison and alleged that the prison authorities had failed to secure him adequate medical care after he had sustained injuries to his head caused by another inmate on 17 March 2006. 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.”
24. The Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
25. The Government requested the Court to declare these complaints inadmissible for failure to exhaust domestic remedies. They submitted that the 1999 Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act envisages a number of remedies for the protection of the rights of persons deprived of liberty, judicial protection against proceedings and decisions of the prison administration included. The applicant should have firstly addressed his complaints to the prison administration. Those complaints should have been clearly specified. The applicant had, however, addressed them directly to a judge responsible for the execution of sentences. The judge instructed the applicant to firstly make his complaints to the prison administration. Furthermore, assuming that the applicant's letter to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences and the judge's letter in reply might be regarded as first-instance proceedings, the applicant could have lodged an appeal with a three-judge panel of the competent County Court. Finally, the applicant could have filed a constitutional complaint in respect of the prison conditions and all the other decisions taken in any of the disciplinary proceedings against him.
26. The applicant submitted that he had exhausted all remedies available within the domestic legal system in respect of the alleged violations.
27. As to the remedies available to the applicant under the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act, the Court notes that section 5 (2) of that Act clearly provides that complaints shall be lodged orally or in writing with a prison governor, a judge responsible for the execution of sentences or the Head Office of the Prison Administration of the Ministry of Justice. It follows that the applicant could have addressed his complaints to any of these authorities. In fact, he chose to address his complaints to a judge responsible for the execution of sentences. In the Court's view this choice was in conformity with the domestic legislation. However, the judge did not institute any proceedings upon the applicant's complaint nor did he issue a decision upon it. Instead, he replied to the applicant by letters, the first of 24 September 2004 and the second of 8 November 2004. As to the Government's contention that the applicant could have lodged an appeal against the decision of the judge responsible for the execution of sentences, the Court notes that the latter did not issue any decision and that it is not possible to lodge an appeal against a letter.
28. As to the possibility of lodging a constitutional complaint about the conditions in prison, the Court observes that the rule of exhaustion of domestic remedies contained in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention requires that normal recourse should be had by an applicant to remedies which are available and sufficient to afford redress in respect of the breaches alleged. The existence of the remedies in question must be sufficiently certain not only in theory but in practice, failing which they will lack the requisite accessibility and effectiveness. It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success (see, among other authorities, Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, pp. 1210-11, §§ 65 and 68).
29. Turning to the present case, the Court observes that the established practice of the Constitutional Court is to declare inadmissible constitutional complaints which do not concern the merits of a given case. Having regard to such a practice and the failure of the Government to produce before the Court any case-law supporting their argument concerning the sufficiency and effectiveness of that remedy, and leaving aside the question of the adequacy of a constitutional complaint as a remedy capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaint, the Court concludes that a constitutional complaint about the prison conditions is not a remedy whose existence has been established with sufficient certainty.
30. The Court finds that the applicant, by complaining to the competent judge responsible for the execution of sentences, made adequate use of the remedies provided for in the domestic law that were at his disposal in respect of his complaints concerning the inadequate prison conditions and the lack of adequate medical assistance. Accordingly, these complaints cannot be dismissed for failure to exhaust domestic remedies.
31. The Court notes that theses complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that they are not inadmissible on any other grounds. They must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
A. The parties' submissions
32. The Government submitted that each cell in Gospić Prison had a toilet and each section had a communal bathroom. Therefore, the applicant's allegation that he had been accommodated in a cell without a toilet was unfounded. The bed sheets had been changed once a week. In the Government's opinion that was sufficient and the applicant's allegations about the dirty sheets were therefore also unfounded. As to the food provided, the applicant's complaint was of a general nature and unsubstantiated. The Government asserted that the food was prepared according to a normal diet. A representative of prisoners was included in drawing up the menu. There had been no complaints from other inmates about the food quality and therefore the applicant's complaint in that connection was also unfounded. As regards toiletries, the Government acknowledged that these had not been provided to the applicant. However, during his stay in Unit 1 of Gospić Prison he had worked and received some income, and therefore had been able to purchase the necessary toiletries. As to the applicant's general complaints about the lack of adequate medical care in prison, the Government submitted that a doctor had been on call every day. As to the applicant's specific allegations that he had not received adequate medical assistance for his injury, the Government emphasised that the medical records submitted showed that the applicant had been seen by a doctor on the same day and adequate treatment had been prescribed. The doctor had seen the applicant again the very next day and three days after the incident the applicant had been sent to a hospital to be examined by a specialist. On that occasion an X-ray examination had also been carried out and it had showed no fractures.
33. The applicant maintained his allegations. He claimed that his description of the conditions of detention and lack of medical assistance was accurate (see paragraphs 11, and 14 above).
B. The Court's assessment
(a) Scope of the issues for consideration
34. The Court notes that the applicant's complaints under Article 3 of the Convention mainly concern two issues:
- first, whether the conditions of the applicant's detention were compatible with that provision; and
- second, whether the applicant was given adequate medical care for the injury sustained on 17 March 2006.
(b) General principles enshrined in the case-law
35. As the Court has held on many occasions, Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of democratic society. It prohibits in absolute terms torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, irrespective of the circumstances and the victim's behaviour (see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, § 119, ECHR 2000-IV).
36. The Court further reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. The assessment of this minimum level of severity is relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim. Furthermore, in considering whether a treatment is “degrading” within the meaning of Article 3, the Court will have regard to whether its object is to humiliate and debase the person concerned and whether, as far as the consequences are concerned, it adversely affected his or her personality in a manner incompatible with Article 3 (see Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, §§ 67-68, 74, ECHR 2001-III, and Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
37. The Court has consistently stressed that the suffering and humiliation involved must in any event go beyond that inevitable element of suffering or humiliation connected with a given form of legitimate treatment or punishment. Measures depriving a person of his liberty may often involve such an element. Under this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI, and McGlinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, § 46, ECHR 2003‑V).
(c) Application in the present case
(i) General conditions in Gospić Prison
38. The Court notes that in the present case the parties have disputed the actual conditions of the applicant's detention in Gospić Prison. However, in the present case the Court does not consider it necessary to establish the truthfulness of each and every allegation of the parties, because it may find a violation of Article 3 on the basis of the facts that have been presented or undisputed by the respondent Government, for the following reasons.
39. The Court notes that it transpires from the Government's observations that in a period of about fifteen months (from 29 September 2004 until November 2005 and again from March to May 2006) the applicant was held in Unit 2 of Gospić Prison where he had been locked in a cell with another inmate save for one hour in the morning, when he had been allowed to go outside, and two hours in the evening, when he had been allowed to watch television, read or play games. Furthermore, the Government did not dispute the applicant's allegations that the cell had been very damp, the mattresses old and torn so that bare wire stuck out, the heating inadequate and the cell devoid of natural light. It is also undisputed that the applicant received no toiletries.
40. The Court does not find it necessary to examine further the conditions of the applicant's detention as the above considerations are sufficient to find a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.
41. The Court accepts that in the present case there is no indication that there was a positive intention of humiliating or debasing the applicant. However, although the question whether the purpose of the treatment was to humiliate or debase the victim is a factor to be taken into account, the absence of any such purpose cannot exclude a finding of violation of Article 3 (see Peers, cited above, § 74, and Romanov v. Russia, no. 63993/00, § 80, 20 October 2005). The Court considers that the above described conditions of detention in which the applicant was held for about fifteen months, must have had a harmful effect on the applicant's human dignity. In the light of the above, the Court finds that the applicant's conditions of detention, in particular the fact that he had been locked in a damp cell with no access to natural light for about twenty hours per day must have had a detrimental effect on the applicant's well-being and that these conditions, combined with the length of the period during which the applicant was detained in such conditions, amounted to degrading treatment.
42. Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the applicant's detention in Unit 2 of Gospić Prison.
(ii) Lack of adequate medical assistance for the applicant's injury
43. The Court notes at the outset that it is undisputed that the applicant was injured on 17 March 2005. The parties disagree, however, over whether the medical assistance provided to the applicant following the injury was adequate and sufficient. The Court observes that the medical records submitted show that on the very same day the applicant saw a prison doctor and complained of dizziness and a headache. The doctor prescribed painkillers. The same doctor saw the applicant again the next day. On 20 March 2005 the applicant was taken to the Gospić General Hospital since he complained of backache. An X-ray examination was carried out and it showed no fractures. The applicant was prescribed further painkillers and a soothing gel.
44. In the Court's view the medical assistance provided to the applicant was adequate and sufficient. In this respect the Court points out in particular that the applicant complained that he had requested an X-ray examination, which had been denied to him. However, the medical records clearly show that an X-ray examination was carried out. Since no fractures were identified the treatment was confined to painkillers, which appears adequate, particularly bearing in mind the fact that the applicant made no further complaints about his health.
45. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention concerning the medical assistance provided to the applicant for the injury sustained on 17 March 2005.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE CONVENTION
46. The applicant made two separate complaints concerning two different sets of disciplinary proceedings against him. The applicant firstly complained about the fairness of the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him in Lepoglava State Prison. He alleged in particular that the time-limit for an appeal against the prison authorities' decision imposing disciplinary sanctions on him, being forty-eight hours only, had been too short, and further that the Varaždin County Court judge responsible for the execution of sentences had erred in his reasoning that a time-limit fixed in hours and expiring on a Sunday did not have to be extended until the first working day. The applicant also complained that in the disciplinary proceedings conducted against him by the Gospić Prison authorities for the alleged possession of illegal drugs, he had not attended the final hearing because his defence lawyer had not been present. The notes on the hearing had not been served on him. The applicant complained that although he had raised the same issues in his appeal against the prison authorities' decision of 2 November 2004 imposing a disciplinary sanction on him, the Gospić County Court judge's decision of 18 November 2004 had not made any reference to these complaints.
The applicant relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
Article 6 § 1
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a] ... tribunal...”
47. The Government argued that under domestic law the proceedings in question undoubtedly fell within the scope of disciplinary matters. The disciplinary offences enumerated in section 145 of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act were a mixture of illegal acts that might amount to violations of the prison disciplinary rules and also those that might amount to criminal offences. As regards the sanctions prescribed, they were purely disciplinary in nature. In conclusion, they submitted that Article 6 was not applicable to the disciplinary proceedings conducted against the applicant.
48. In the alternative and as regards the proceedings conducted in connection with the offence committed during the applicant's stay in Lepoglava State Prison, they maintained that the applicant had not shown that either he or his counsel had attempted to lodge an appeal on a Sunday. The applicant had been in Lepoglava State Prison, where he could have handed his appeal to a member of the prison staff at any time. Under domestic law this would have sufficed to comply with the prescribed time-limit.
49. As regards the proceedings conducted against the applicant on charges of possession of drugs in Gospić Prison, the Government contended that the decisions taken in those proceedings had been adequately and sufficiently reasoned. They further stressed that in his appeal the applicant had only briefly mentioned that he had not been present at the final hearing and stated that his counsel would elaborate on this issue in a separate appeal. However, counsel had not done so.
50. The applicant made no submissions on the applicability of Article 6 but reiterated his initial complaints as regards the fairness of both sets of disciplinary proceedings against him.
51. The Court firstly has to examine the issue of applicability of Article 6 to both sets of proceedings. The Court reiterates that under its constant case-law Article 6 of the Convention does not apply in principle to disciplinary proceedings, unless, having regard to the autonomy of the concept "criminal charge", a disciplinary offence belongs to the criminal sphere (see Engel and Others v. the Netherlands, judgment of 8 June 1976, Series A no. 22, pp. 33-35, § 80-82; Campbell and Fell v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 28 June 1984, Series A no. 80, pp. 34-38, §§ 66- 73; and Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, § 82, ECHR 2003-X).
52. In order to determine whether Article 6 § 1 is applicable under its "criminal" head, the Court has to have regard to the three alternative criteria laid down in its case-law, namely the legal classification of the offence under domestic law, the nature of the offence and the nature and degree of severity of the penalty (see Campbell and Fell, cited above, pp. 34 et seq., §§ 67 et seq.).
53. In the first-mentioned respect it is clear that, in Croatian law, the offences with which the applicant was charged both in Lepoglava State Prison and in Gospić Prison belong to disciplinary law.
54. In respect of the Lepoglava State Prison proceedings, the Court notes that Section 145 (2)(10) of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act states that conduct of that kind on the part of a prisoner is a minor disciplinary offence. The Court finds that this offence was disciplinary in nature, given that it involved a violation of rules governing the operation of the prison.
55. As to the penalty imposed the Court notes that the applicant was punished with seven days' solitary confinement, which punishment was to be implemented only if the applicant committed another disciplinary offence within three months.
56. The Court recalls that in the Engel and Others judgment (cited above, p. 35, § 82), it stated that deprivation of liberty liable to be imposed as a punishment was, in general, a penalty that belonged to the "criminal" sphere. However, in the present case the legal basis for the applicant's deprivation of liberty was his original conviction for criminal offences. Although the disciplinary sanction added a new element – imposition of seven days' solitary confinement – it did not in any way extend the applicant's prison term. Furthermore, the seriousness of the sanction was lessened by its conditional character. Therefore, the Court considers that the penalty imposed was not of such nature and severity that the matter would thereby have been brought within the “criminal” sphere.
57. In respect of the proceedings conducted against the applicant in Gospić Prison the Court notes that the applicant was charged with attempting to introduce illegal drugs into the prison via a letter sent to him by his girlfriend.
58. As to the nature of the offence, it is firstly to be noted that the offence with which the applicant was charged belongs to disciplinary law: section 145 (3)(11) of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act states that conduct of that kind on the part of a prisoner is a grave disciplinary offence. However, according to the Court's case law, the indications so afforded by the national law have only relative value; the very nature of the offence is a factor of greater importance (see Campbell and Fell, cited above, p. 36, § 71).
59. The Court's case law affirms that it has to be borne in mind that misconduct by a prisoner may take different forms; certain acts are clearly no more than a question of internal discipline, whereas others cannot be seen in the same light. Firstly, some matters may be more serious than others. Secondly, the illegality of some acts may not turn on the fact that they were committed in prison: certain conduct which constitutes a disciplinary offence may also amount to an offence under the criminal law. In the circumstance of the present case, it corresponds to a crime of drug abuse under Article 173 of the Croatian Penal Code which comprises also mere possession of the illegal drugs.
60. However, the fact that the offence in question could have been the subject of both criminal and prison disciplinary proceedings does not suffice for the Court to conclude that Article 6 is applicable to these proceedings. In this respect the Court notes that the national authorities did not institute any criminal proceedings against the applicant, but opted for disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, it is necessary to turn to the third criterion: the nature and degree of severity of the penalty that the applicant risked incurring (see Engel and Others, cited above, pp. 34-35, § 82).
61. The Court notes that the sanction imposed restricted the applicant's free movement inside the prison and his contact with the outside world for a period of three months. In this respect the Court notes that at the core of maintaining an adequate prison regime lies the need to impose disciplinary sanctions for breaches of prison discipline. The Court stresses the importance of preserving an effective system of order and control in prison. The sanction imposed on the applicant for a very serious breach of prison discipline did not extend the applicant's prison term (see, a contrario, Ezeh and Connors v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 39665/98 and 40086/98, ECHR 2003‑X), nor did it seriously aggravate the terms of the applicant's prison conditions. It restricted the applicant's freedoms in prison for a limited period of time. In the Court's view, this sanction stayed entirely within the “disciplinary” sphere.
62. Therefore, the Court concludes that the penalty imposed was not of such nature and severity that the matter would thereby have been brought within the “criminal” sphere. Accordingly, Article 6 of the Convention does not apply in the instant case.
63. It follows that this part of the application is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and therefore must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
64. The applicant further made two complaints concerning his right to respect for his correspondence. He firstly complained of the fact that a postal parcel sent to him to Gospić Prison on 30 August 2004 by his parents had never been delivered. Secondly, he complained that some six to eight letters sent by him from the prison had never been forwarded to the addressees. He relied on Article 8 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which read as follows:
Article 8
“1. Everyone has the right to respect for his ... correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
65. The Government contested these arguments.
(a) Postal parcel sent to the applicant by his parents
1. Admissibility
66. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
2. Merits
67. The Government contended that the ban on receiving postal parcels for a period of three months had been imposed by the prison authorities as a disciplinary measure against the applicant for a grave breach of the prison rules (smuggling of illegal drugs) and that there is no indication that such an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence had been disproportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.
68. The Court observes that on 2 November 2004 the applicant was punished with a minor disciplinary reprimand – restriction of movement inside the prison and contact with the outside world for three months, which included the deprivation of the right to receive parcels for the following three months (see paragraph 9 above). The reason for that punishment, as confirmed by the Gospić County Court, was the fact that the applicant had attempted to smuggle illegal drugs into the prison in breach of section 145 (3)(11) of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act. The Court finds that this punishment constituted an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.
69. The Court reiterates that any “interference by a public authority” with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is “in accordance with the law”, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is “necessary in a democratic society” in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, the following judgments: Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1983, Series A no. 61, p. 32, § 84; Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34; Niedbała v. Poland, no. 27915/95, § 78, 4 July 2000;and Klyakhin v. Russia, no. 46082/99, § 107, 30 November 2004).
70. The Court must first consider whether the interference was “in accordance with the law”. This expression requires firstly that the impugned measure should have some basis in domestic law; it also refers to the quality of the law in question, requiring that it should be accessible to the person concerned, who must moreover be able to foresee its consequences for him, and be compatible with the rule of law (see Kruslin v. France, judgment of 24 April 1990, Series A no. 176‑A, p. 20, § 27; Huvig v. France, Series A no. 176-B, p. 52, § 26; and Dankevich v. Ukraine, no. 40679/98, § 152, 29 April 2003).
71. The Court notes that the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act clearly provides that possession of drugs represents a grave disciplinary offence and that disciplinary offences are punishable, inter alia, with forfeiture of the right to receive parcels for a period of up to three months. An inmate punished with any of the disciplinary sanctions is able to lodge a complaint with a judge responsible for the execution of sentences and to appeal the judge's decision. The Act was published in the Official Gazette. Therefore, the Court is satisfied that the domestic law at issue in the present case was drafted with sufficient clarity and precision so as to satisfy the requirement of being foreseeable, and was furthermore accessible and appealable to a court. The interference was thus compatible with the “lawfulness” requirement in the second paragraph of Article 8. It is further observed that the interference pursued the legitimate aim of the prevention of disorder and crime.
72. As to the necessity of the interference, the Court considers that the ordinary and reasonable requirements of imprisonment justify a system of imposing disciplinary measures on inmates who breach the prison rules. With that aim in mind, a measure imposing certain restrictions of the prisoner's right to respect for his or her correspondence may be called for and may not of itself be incompatible with the Convention (see Silver and Others v. the United Kingdom, Series A no. 61, judgment of 25 March 1983, p. 38, § 98, and, a contrario, Jankauskas v. Lithuania, no. 59304/00, judgment of 24 February 2005, §§ 21-22).
73. As to the present case the Court notes firstly that the measure in question was applied in connection with finding the applicant guilty of a very serious disciplinary offence, also amounting to criminal activity (possession of illegal drugs) and that it lasted for a limited period of time (three months). The Court notes, secondly, that the applicant's complaints received a judicial review by the Gospić County Court (see paragraph 10 above). Thirdly, the applicant has failed to present any argument calling into question the proportionality of the measure imposed. Fourthly, the penalty imposed on the applicant was of a minor nature. In the specific circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the authorities did not overstep their margin of appreciation in the present case, and that the interference was proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.
74. There has thus been no breach of Article 8.
(b) Alleged failure of the prison authorities to forward the applicant's letters to the addressees
75. The Government submitted that all letters handed by the applicant to the prison authorities had been duly forwarded to a post office. They further emphasised that the applicant had failed to produce any details of the facts complained of.
76. The Court notes that the applicant failed to specify when and if the letters had been handed to the prison authorities and to whom they had been addressed. He also failed to provide any information on how he had learned that the letters had not reached the addressees. In these circumstances the Court considers that the alleged interference has not been established with sufficient certainty.
77. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION
78. The applicant also complained that he had no effective remedy at his disposal in respect of his complaint concerning the prison conditions under Article 3 of the Convention, contrary to 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.”
A. Admissibility
79. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
80. The Government argued that under national law a number of remedies provided for in the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act were available to persons deprived of liberty, such as filing a petition with a prison administration, a judge responsible for the execution of sentences or the Head Office of the Prison Administration. Furthermore, the applicant could have lodged a constitutional complaint.
81. The Court notes that under domestic legislation the applicant was able to lodge a complaint concerning the conditions in prison and the lack of adequate medical assistance and a complaint concerning the lack of respect for his right to correspondence either with the prison authorities, a judge responsible for the execution of sentences or the Head Office of the Prison Administration, and that the applicant actually made use of one of these possibilities, namely, he lodged a complaint with the competent judge responsible for the execution of sentences at the Gospić County Court.
82. The Court recalls that in its partial decision on admissibility in respect of the present case (see Štitić v. Croatia (dec.), no. 9660/03, 9 November 2006), it established that the applicant, whose situation in Lepoglava State Prison had been remedied by a decision of the Varaždin County Court (Županijski sud u Varaždinu) judge responsible for execution of sentences and who, following such a decision, had been transferred to an adequate cell, could have brought a civil action against the State claiming damages for the suffering hitherto sustained. Whilst the institution of civil proceedings for damages in itself could not be regarded as an effective remedy for addressing adverse prison conditions, such proceedings in combination with an urgent decision of a judge responsible for execution of sentences, with an immediate effect on the actual conditions of an individual applicant, did satisfy the requirements of effectiveness.
83. However, as regards the applicant's complaints lodged on 14 September and 21 October 2004 with the Gospić County Court judge responsible for the execution of sentences about the general conditions in Gospić Prison (see §§ 16 and 18 above), the Court notes that in his letter of 8 November 2004 the judge expressly stated that he had no jurisdiction to supervise the running of prisons (see § 18 above).
84. The Court reiterates that the effect of Article 13 is to require the provision of a domestic remedy allowing the competent national authority both to deal with the substance of the relevant Convention complaint and to grant appropriate relief, although Contracting States are afforded some discretion as to the manner in which they comply with their obligations under this provision (see Chahal v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 15 November 1996, Reports 1996-V, pp. 1869-70, § 145). The remedy required by Article 13 must be “effective”, both in practice and in law. However, such a remedy is required only for complaints that can be regarded as “arguable” under the Convention (see Metropolitan Church of Bessarabia and Others v. Moldova, no. 45701/99, § 137, ECHR 2001-XII).
85. In the instant case, in view of the conclusion under Article 3 (see § 31 above), the Court considers that the applicant's complaint did raise an issue of compliance with the Convention standards on the conditions in which the applicant was held in Unit 2 of Gospić Prison. The applicant could therefore have expected the Gospić County Court judge responsible for the execution of sentences to deal with the substance of his complaint and adopt a formal decision in this respect, which the judge did not. Instead, he declined his jurisdiction in the matter.
86. Whilst it is true that the fact that a remedy does not lead to an outcome favourable to the applicant does not render a remedy ineffective (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 157, ECHR 2000-XI), the Court concludes that the practice of the Gospić County Court judge responsible for the execution of sentences in the circumstances of the present case rendered an otherwise effective remedy ineffective. This conclusion does not, however, call into question the effectiveness of the remedy as such or the obligation of an incarcerated person to petition a competent judge responsible for the execution of sentences pursuant to sections 15 and 17 of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act in order to exhaust domestic remedies concerning complains about the conditions of imprisonment.
87. However, having regard to the circumstances of the present case, it follows that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention in the present case.
IV. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
88. 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.”
89. The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction or for any costs and expenses incurred. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Declares the complaints concerning the conditions of the applicant's detention in Gospić Prison and the alleged lack of adequate medical assistance for his injury as well as the complaints concerning the violation of the applicants right to respect for his correspondence in the part referring to the ban on receiving postal parcels for a period of three months and the lack of an effective remedy in respect of the complaint concerning the prison conditions admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of the applicant's detention in Unit 2 of Gospić Prison;
3. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the alleged lack of adequate medical assistance for the applicant's injury;
4. Holds that there has been no violation of Article 8 of the Convention;
5. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 13 of the Convention;
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 November 2007, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
baza unakrsnih veza