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
EUROPSKI SUD ZA LJUDSKA PRAVA
PRVI ODJEL
PREDMET CENBAUER PROTIV HRVATSKE
(Zahtjev br. 73786/01)
PRESUDA
STRASBOURG
9. ožujka 2006.
Ova će presuda postati konačnom pod okolnostima utvrđenim u članku 44. stavku 2. Konvencije. Može biti podvrgnuta uredničkim izmjenama.
U predmetu Cenbauer protiv Hrvatske, Europski sud za ljudska prava (Prvi odjel), zasjedajući u vijeću u sastavu:
g. C.L. ROZAKIS,
g. L. LOUCAIDES,
g. F. TULKENS,
g. P. LORENZEN
gđa N. VAJIĆ,
g. D. SPIELMANN,
g. S.E. JEBENS,
i g. S. NIELSEN, tajnik Odjela,
nakon vijećanja zatvorenog za javnost 14. veljače 2006. godine donosi sljedeću presudu koja je usvojena tog datuma:
POSTUPAK
1. Postupak u ovome predmetu pokrenut je na temelju zahtjeva (br. 73786/03) protiv Republike Hrvatske kojeg je 14. siječnja 1997.godine hrvatski državljanin, g. Miroslav Cenbauer ("podnositelj zahtjeva") podnio Europskoj komisiji za ljudska prava („Komsija“) na temelju članka 25. Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i temeljnih sloboda ("Konvencija").
2. Hrvatsku Vladu ("Vlada") zastupale su njene zastupnice, prvo gđa L. Lukina- Karajković, a nakon toga gđa Š. Stažnik.
3. Podnositelj zahtjeva prigovorio je, posebice, da su okolnosti njegova lišenja slobode u Kaznenom zavodu Lepoglava („KZL“) predstavljale nečovječno i ponižavajuće postupanje protivno članku 3. Konvencije.
4. Zahtjev je bio proslijeđen Sudu 1. studenog 1998. godine kada je stupio na snagu Protokol br. 11. Konvencije (članak 5., stavak 2. Protokola br. 11).
5. Zahtjev je dodijeljen u rad Prvom odjelu Suda (pravilo 52. stavak 1. Poslovnika Suda). U okviru tog Odjela, Vijeće koje je trebalo razmatrati predmet (članak 27. stavak 1. Konvencije) sastavljeno je u skladu s pravilom 26. stavkom 1.
6. Odlukom od 5. veljače 2004. godine Sud je zahtjev proglasio djelomično dopuštenim. 7. Vlada, ali ne i podnositelj zahtjeva, je dostavila očitovanje o osnovanosti zahtjeva (Pravilo 59. stavak 1.). Vijeće je odlučilo, nakon što se konzultiralo sa strankama, da nije bilo potrebno održati ročište o osnovanosti zahtjeva (Pravilo 59., stavak 3. in fine).
8. Dana 1. studenog 2004. godine Sud je izmijenio sastav svojih Odjela (Pravilo 25., stavak 1.). Ovaj predmet je dodijeljen u rad novo sastavljenom Prvom odjelu (Pravilo 52., stavak 1.).
ČINJENICE
I. OKOLNOSTI PREDMETA
A. Kratki pregled događaja
9. Podnositelj zahtjeva je rođen 1971. godine i živi u Viljevu, Hrvatska.11. KZL je zgrada koja se sastoji od pet krila, A, B, C, D i E. Sva su krila obnovljena. Krilo B obnovljeno je posljednje; njegova je obnova dovršena u prosincu 2003. godine.
12. Podnositelj zahtjeva ostao je u KZL do 27. rujna 1995. godine kad je prebačen u drugi zatvor. Po drugi puta je primljen u KZL 30. prosinca 1998. godine.
13. Dana 4. listopada 1999. godine podnositelj zahtjeva je prebačen u Kaznionicu u Glini gdje je ostao do 5. travnja 2000. godine. Tada je prebačen u Kaznionicu u Požegi. Tijekom njegovog boravka u toj instituciji podnositelju zahtjeva su bile odobrene razne povlastice, uključujući i pravo na kratke dopuste. Nakon što je počinio kaznena djela (provalu i krađu) dok je koristio dopust, podnositelj zahtjeva je 21. rujna 2000. godine ponovno prebačen u KZL. Dana 3. siječnja 2001. godine smješten je u krilo B.
14. Dana 8. travnja 2003. godine podnositelj zahtjeva je prebačen u ćeliju u obnovljenom dijelu krila B.
15. Dana 22. kolovoza 2003. godine podnositelj zahtjeva je otpušten jer je odslužio zatvorsku kaznu.
B. Navodi stranaka
16. Podnositelj zahtjeva je dao slijedeći opis uvjeta lišenja slobode u krilu B KZL-a.17. Ćelija u kojoj je bio smješten bila je mala te nije imao niti sanitarni čvor niti tekuću vodu. Nije bilo grijanja, a zidovi ćelije bili su vlažni i orošeni. Ćelija je bila prljava, a krevetnina se nije mijenjala kroz dulja vremenska razdoblja. Kako bi urinirao noću, a i u drugim vremenima kad je bio zatvoren u svoju ćeliju, podnositelj zahtjeva morao je koristiti plastični kontejner od četiri litre u obliku boce, jer su stražari odbili otključati ćeliju i dozvoliti mu koristiti zahod. Toaletni pribor i drugi proizvodi za osobnu higijenu osiguravani su svakih četiri do pet mjeseci. Hrana posluživana zatvorenicima bila je nedostatna i slabe kvalitete; zatvorenicima su bili posluživani samo ugljikohidrati, bez bilo kakvog povrća i skoro bez ikakvog mesa. Općenito, zatvor je bio pretrpan. Zatvorske zgrade, izgrađene prije oko dvjesto godina, bile su vrlo loše održavane. Budući da zatvorski stražari nisu nosili značke sa svojim brojem ili imenom, zatvorenici nisu mogli znati njihov identitet. Zatvorenici su postrojavani u vrstu i po deset puta dnevno, čak i kad je padala kiša. Isto su tako morali ići na šetnje na otvorenom u šlapama, čak i kad je padala kiša ili snijeg.
18. Vlada je dala slijedeći opis uvjeta u kojima je podnositelj bio lišen slobode u KZL-u. 19. Ćelija podnositelja zahtjeva bila je ćelija za dvije osobe. Podnositelj zahtjeva ju je većinu vremena dijelio s još jednim zatvorenikom, te je samo jedno kratko razdoblje od oko dva mjeseca bio sam u ćeliji. Ćelija je bila dugačka 3.50m, široka 1.60m i visoka 3.05m. Imala je prozor veličine 80x80 cm i jedno rasvjetno tijelo. U ćeliji nije bio sanitarni čvor, ali podnositelju se osiguravala mogućnost stalnog korištenja zajedničkog sanitarnog čvora te je mogao koristiti tuš. Zatvorenicima je svaki mjesec bila osiguravana pasta za zube, sapun, krema za brijanje, jednokratne britvice, šampon i toaletni papir. Hrana posluživana zatvorenicima bila je propisane kalorijske vrijednosti i, općenito, zatvorenici nisu imali nikakve pritužbe u tom pogledu. Zatvorenici su bili postrojavani u vrstu nekoliko puta na dan prije obroka. Zatvorenici koji su radili bili su također postrojavani kad su išli na posao i vraćali se s njega te prije i nakon odmora. Zatvorenici su postrojavani na otvorenom kad je to dozvoljavalo vrijeme te su bili odgovarajuće obučeni. Za lošeg vremena zatvorenici su postrojavani u zatvorskoj zgradi. Zatvorenicima je bio dan veliki prostor na otvorenom za vježbanje te su mogli nedjeljom gledati filmske predstave.
20. Vlada je tvrdila da je obnova krila B dovršena 5. prosinca 2003. godine. Ono je svježe oličeno, i svaka je ćelija dobila zahod i umivaonik. Ćelije sada imaju parket na podu, novi namještaj i radijatore, nove električne utičnice i nova rasvjetna tijela u ćelijama. Sada 35-40 zatvorenika koristi četiri tuša.
C. Nalazi Europskog odbora za sprječavanje torture i neljudskog ili ponižavajućeg postupanja ili kazne
21. CPT je u Hrvatskoj boravio od 20. do 30. rujna 1998. Njegovi nalazi u pogledu KZL-a glase kako slijedi (izvadak iz Izvješća hrvatskoj Vladi o boravku Europskog odbora za sprječavanje torture i neljudskog ili ponižavajućeg postupanja ili kažnjavanja (CPT) u Hrvatskoj od 20. do 30. rujna 1998., CPT/Inf. (2001) 4, izvadak:
„a. materijalni uvjeti
58. ... u dva neobnovljena krila, B i E, u kojima su uglavnom smješteni nezaposleni zatvorenici, zatvorske su uvjeti bili veoma loši. U tim su krilima zatvorenici držani u skučenim uvjetima, i to tako da su u ćelijama veličine od 5,5 do otprilike 6,5 m 2 obično bile dvije do tri osobe. CPT mora naglasiti da su ćelije ove veličine pogodne za smještaj isključivo jedne osobe. Nadalje, ćelije su bile vrlo prljave i u lošem stanju, a određeni ih je broj imao loš pristup dnevnom svjetlu odnosno prigušenom ili umjetnom osvjetljenju. Osim toga, nisu bile opremljene cjelovitim sanitarnim čvorovima, tako da su zatvorenici noću morali obavljati fiziološke potrebe koristeći posude u svojim ćelijama. Što se tiče zajedničkih sanitarnih čvorova, oni su općenito uzevši bili u jadnom stanju (neki od njih s opasnim poplavljenim podovima). Također je vrijedno istaknuti da se nekoliko zatvorenika u ova dva krila tužilo kako nisu u mogućnosti nabaviti potreban toaletni pribor. Ravnatelj je izaslanstvo obavijestio da je u planu obnova čitave ustanove, ali da su naišli na poteškoće u pribavljanju potrebnih sredstava. CPT mora naglasiti da su prevladavajući materijalni uvjeti u krilima B i E prilično neprihvatljivi.
Stoga Odbor preporuča da se obnova tih krila, uključujući i postavljanje sanitarnih čvorova u ćelijama kao što je to napravljeno u krilu D, treba smatrati pitanjem od visokog prioriteta.
Osim toga, CPT preporučuje da se odmah poduzmu koraci kako bi se osiguralo da se svim zatvorenicima u Kaznenom zavodu Lepoglava omogući nabavljanje proizvoda za osobnu higijenu (toaletni papir, sapun, pasta za zube, itd.) kao i potrebnih sredstava za održavanje njihovih ćelija i zajedničkih sanitarnih čvorova u čistom i higijenskom stanju.
59. Nadalje, kao što je već naznačeno u točkama 56. i 58., u vrijeme posjeta zatvoreni dio bio je prenapučen. To se posebno odnosilo na neobnovljena krila...
CPT preporuča da se poduzmu ozbiljni napori kako bi se smanjio broj zatvorenika po jednoj sobi u zatvorenom dijelu Kaznenog zavoda Lepoglava...
b. režim
61. Prema članku 19. Zakona o izvršavanju kazne zatvora, zatvorenicima se mora osigurati, u mjeri u kojoj je to moguće s obzirom na kapacitete i resurse ustanove, različite oblike rada koji odgovaraju njihovim sposobnostima i vještinama.
62. Od 660 zatvorenika u zatvorenim i poluotvorenim dijelovima Kaznenog zatvora Lepoglava, oko 300 ih je sudjelovalo u različitim vrstama radnih aktivnosti, uključujući drvodjelstvo i proizvodnju namještaja (gdje je bilo zaposleno 150 zatvorenika), rad s metalom (20), obrt kao i različita radna mjesta u vezi sa svakodnevnim funkcioniranjem zatvora (pranje rublja, kuhanje, vrtlarstvo, itd.).
63. Ipak, ostaje činjenica da u vrijeme posjete većina zatvorenika u zatvorenom dijelu ustanove – 324 od 532 – nije radila. 110 zatvorenika bili su na popisu čekanja za rad. Nadalje, 83 zatvorenika je bilo kategorizirano kao oni koji trajno ne rade, bilo po njihovom izboru ili radi invalidnosti, iako su mnogi od tih zatvorenika s kojima je izaslanstvo razgovarala rekli da su u stvari željeli raditi.
Situaciju zatvorenika koji ne rade još je više nezadovoljavajućom činio nedostatak drugih režimskih aktivnosti u zatvoru. Iako je ustanova opremljena dobrim obrazovnim mogućnostima, samo je 50 zatvorenika - uključujući neke koji već rade – pohađalo nastavu. Nadalje, oskudni su bili dokazi o terapeutskim programima (to jest, onima koji su usredotočeni na kazneno djelo) i nije bilo organiziranih sportskih aktivnosti. Ukratko, gotovo je dvije trećine zatvorenika smještenih u zatvorenom dijelu podlijegalo osiromašenom režimu; utvrđeno je da se tipičan dnevni program jednog zatvorenika koji ne radi sastoji tek malo više od gledanja televizije u prostorima za druženje i vježbanja na zraku.
64. ... Za većinu zatvorenika u zatvorenom dijelu ustanove nije postojao pozitivni režim koji bi ih poticao da se bave problemom svog prestupničkog ponašanja.
CPT preporuča hrvatskim vlastima da poduzmu potrebne korake kako bi osigurale da svi zatvorenici Kaznenog zavoda Lepoglava imaju pristup odgovarajućem rasponu radnih, obrazovnih, sportskih i rekreacijskih aktivnosti.“
D. Izvješće Misije za utvrđivanje činjenica u Kaznenom zavodu Lepoglava
22. Dana 1. srpnja 2002. godine izaslanstvo Suda posjetilo je Kazneni zavod Lepoglava u svrhu predmeta Benzan (vidi predmet Benzan protiv Hrvatske, br. 62912/00 od 8. studenog 2002. godine). Njegovi nalazi o općim uvjetima u KZL su slijedeći:
„Sastanak s upraviteljem KZL-a
Upravitelj zatvora obavijestio je izaslanstvo da je krilo B jedino neobnovljeno krilo. On je nadalje obavijestio izaslanstvo da je u zatvoru bilo 683 zatvorenika. Priznao je da je zatvor pretrpan, osobito krilo B.
Obilazak KZL-a
Krilo B
Našli smo da je ćelija 17 smještena kraj zajedničke kupaonice. Veličina joj je bila 3.50 x 1.60 metara. U ćeliji nije bilo sanitarnog čvora. Bile su dvije električne utičnice koje nisu radile. Na plafonu je bilo zamagljeno svjetlo. Prozor na zidu preko puta vrata bio je veličine 80 cm2. U ćeliji se nalazila jedna drvena stolica i metalni ormarić za stvari. Tu se nalazio i jedan komplet kreveta na kat. Madraci su bili prljavi i imali su mrlje krvi. Ćelija je jako smrdila po vlazi. Betonski zidovi bili su na dodir vlažni.
Prostor tuša, WC-a i praonice rublja
Za 60 zatvorenika bila su tri WC-a i dva tuša. U WC-u nije bilo grijanja. U prostoriji za tuš bio je jedan radijator. Nije bilo toaletnog papira. Kraj tuševa nalazio se prostor za pranje rublja opremljen dugim kadama u kojima su zatvorenici prali svoju odjeću. Pristup prostoru za pranje rublja bio je moguć jedan sat na dan.
Unutarnji prostor za zabavu i rekreaciju
Nakon toga smo posjetili sobu za TV gdje smo našli jedan televizor, oko 20 stolica i 7 stolova. Ona je služila za 60 zatvorenika.
Tu je bila i društvena soba sa 6 stolova, svaki sa po 4 stolice, koja je služila za 44 zatvorenika. Na stolovima smo vidjeli kutije za šah. Unutra je bila jedna peć s dva električna grijača i jednim sudoperom.
Na svakom smo katu vidjeli opremu za stolni tenis, svaka je služila za 44 zatvorenika.
Obnovljeno krilo
Ovdje smo posjetili ćeliju veličine 11m2. U njoj su se nalazila dva kompleta kreveta na kat. Tu se nalazila odvojena kupaonica s WC-om i umivaonikom, no nije bilo ni tuša ni kade. Međutim, na istom su se katu nalazili zajednički tuševi. Tu se nalazila jedna električna utičnica, tri svjetla na plafonu, dva metalna ormarića za stvari, dvije drvene stolice, jedan stol i jedna polica na zidu. Tu su bila i dva prozora (80 x 80 centimetara). Soba je bila svježe obojana i imala je parket na podu. Bila je vrlo čista.
Prostor za rekreaciju na otvorenom
Vidjeli smo veliki prostor za hodanje, s klupama i drvećem i asfaltiranim igralištem velikih razmjera.
Kantina
Kantina u kojoj zatvorenici jedu velika je soba, odvojena od drugih zatvorskih prostora. U njoj se u jednom trenutku može smjestiti 200 osoba. Zatvorenici jedu u smjenama. Hrana se kuha u tom objektu, a postoji i pekara.
Prostor za rad
Radni prostor obuhvaća nekoliko velikih radionica za obradu drveta, proizvodnju ploča za šah, uokvirivanje slika, uvezivanje knjiga i tiskanje knjiga kao i umjetničkog studija uključujući i odjel za vizualnu umjetnost.
Radionica za uvezivanje knjiga gdje podnositelj zahtjeva radi ima velike prozore, pisaći stol i stolicu.“
Razgovori
Podnositelj zahtjeva
Podnositelj zahtjeva je izvijestio izaslanstvo da je bio smješten u ćeliju br. 17 u krilu B negdje u svibnju 2000. godine i da je tamo ostao do kolovoza ili rujna 2001. godine. Izvijestio je da je u vrijeme njegovoga dolaska nije bilo stakla na prozoru, ali da je to bilo popravljeno za nekoliko dana. Boja na zidovima se ljuštila i ćelija je bila vrlo vlažna. Negdje 2001. godine zidovi su bili ponovno oličeni u cijelome krilu. Nadalje je izvijestio da iako je u ćeliji bio radijator, sve do kraja zime 2001. godine u ćeliji nije bilo grijanja, kad su radijatori popravljeni, ali da je čak i nakon toga grijanje bilo nedovoljno. Podnositelj zahtjeva je naglasio da su zahodi u krilu B bili obnovljeni do određene mjere i da su bili u puno lošijem stanju. Rekao je da je na zidovima bila vlaga koja je prekrivena bojom.
Dnevni raspored podnositelja zahtjeva bio je kako slijedi:
7 sati – buđenje
8-9 sati – doručak i šetnja
10:30 – 11:30 – zaključan u ćeliji 11:30 ručak
12:30 – 1:30 šetnja
3:00-5:00 zaključan u ćeliji
5:30 – večera
od 7 sati – zaključan u ćeliji 9 sati – gašenje svjetla
Podnositelj zahtjeva se žalio da su zatvorenici uvijek bili u vremenskoj stisci za ručak i večeru jer je bilo previše ljudi, podijeljenih u nekoliko smjena. Rekao je i da je hrana bila slabe kvalitete, loše pripremljena, loše skuhana i da je jedina jestiva hrana bio kruh. Rekao je da je većinu vremena bio gladan. Zatvorenici su bili obučeni u traperice i košulje koje su se mijenjale svake dvije godine. Daju im se i cipele, donje rublje i jakna.
Podnositelj zahtjeva je prigovorio da je posteljina bila prljava, masna i prekratka. Deke su bile stare, prljave i nisu bile prane sedam godina. Madrac u njegovoj ćeliji je bio star, trunuo je, imao je fleke od krvi i bio je vlažan. Podnositelj zahtjeva je izjavio i da je medicinska pomoć bila dostupna samo jednom tjedno ponedjeljkom i da su razgovori s liječnikom bili površni, i trajali su samo jednu minutu.
Direktor zatvora
Ravnatelj zatvora je priznao da su ove godine bile dvije smrti od infarkta i da je jedan broj zatvorenika bolovao od hepatitisa, iako nisu bili smješteni u posebnu jedinicu. Priznao je nadalje da je u cijelom području bilo nestašica vode zbog problemom s pritiskom vode. Međutim, kupaone su bile otvorene od 9:30 do 11:30 prije podne i od 4 do 5:30 poslije podne. Glede medicinskog osoblja, rekao je da su u punom radnom vremenu bili zaposleni jedan liječnik, specijalist opće medicine, i jedan zubar. U zatvoru je u svako doba bila nazočna barem jedna medicinska sestra. Jednom tjedno liječnici različitih specijalizacija posjećivali su zatvor (specijalist za plućne bolesti, kirurg, internist i oftalmolog).
Također je izvijestio da je tada oko 50% zatvorenika radilo u zatvoru.
II. MJERODAVNO DOMAĆE PRAVO I PRAKSA
23. Članak 23. Ustava Republike Hrvatske propisuje kako slijedi:
„Nitko ne smije biti podvrgnut bilo kakvu obliku zlostavljanja.....“
24. Zakon o izvršavanju kazne zatvora (Narodne novine br. 128/1999 od 30. studenog 1999. i br. 190/2003 od 3. prosinca 2003 (pročišćeni tekst) – „Zakon“) stupio je na snagu 1. srpnja 2001. godine, a odredbe koje se odnose na suca izvršenja stupile su na snagu šest mjeseci kasnije, 1. siječnja 2002. godine. Mjerodavne odredbe Zakona glase kako slijedi:
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.“
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.“
Članak 77.
„1. Kaznionica, odnosno zatvor osigurava zatvoreniku rublje, odjeću, obuću i posteljinu prikladno klimatskim uvjetima.“
Članak 78.
„(3) Zatvoreniku se osiguravaju najmanje tri obroka dnevno kalorične vrijednosti od najmanje 3 000 kcal dnevno. Sastav i hranidbenu vrijednost hrane nadzire liječnik ili druga osoba medicinske struke.“
PRAVO
I. VLADINI PRELIMINARNI PRIGOVORI
25. Vlada je ustvrdila da podnositelj zahtjeva nije iscrpio domaća pravna sredstva kako to traži članak 35. Konvencije, čiji mjerodavni do glasi kako slijedi:
„1. Sud može razmatrati predmet samo nakon što su iscrpljena sva raspoloživa domaća pravna sredstva, u skladu s općeprihvaćenim pravilima međunarodnog prava...
4. Sud će odbaciti svaki zahtjev koji smatra nedopuštenim na temelju ovoga članka. Takva odluka može biti donesena u bilo kojem stadiju postupka.“
26. Vlada je tvrdila je da je podnositelj zahtjeva trebao podnijeti zahtjev za sudsku zaštitu sucu izvršenja na temelju članka 17. Zakona. S tim u vezi dostavili su primjerak odluke Županijskog suda u Varaždinu od 17. prosinca 2003. godine, kojom je taj sud prihvatio sličan prigovor u predmetu V.Š., zatvorenika koji je služio kaznu u KZL-u. Utvrdio je da je V.Š. bio u ćeliji manjoj od minimalne veličine propisane zakonom, da je ta činjenica povrijedila njegova prava i da je trebao biti prebačen u drugu ćeliju odgovarajuće veličine. Glede njegovoga zahtjeva za naknadu štete, Županijski sud u Varaždinu dao je upute V.Š.-u da pokrene građanski postupak protiv države.
27. Vlada je smatrala da je ova odluka dokazala djelotvornost zahtjeva za sudsku zaštitu na temelju članka 17. Zakona glede loših uvjeta u zatvoru. Budući da je dostavljena odluka bila donesena kratko nakon što je podnositelj zahtjeva odslužio kaznu zatvora, Vlada je tvrdila da je i podnositelj zahtjeva trebao podnijeti takav zahtjev za sudsku zaštitu prije nego je podnio svoj zahtjev.
28. Podnositelj zahtjeva nije se složio s Vladom. Tvrdio je da dostavljena odluka nije uopće mjerodavna za njegov predmet, jer je u svakom slučaju donesena nakon što je on bio pušten iz KZL-a.
29. Sud treba prvo utvrditi je li Vlada u ovome predmetu izgubila pravo uložiti prigovor o neiscrpljivanju pravnih sredstava.
30. Na početku, Sud primijećuje da je Vlada već uložila taj prigovor u fazi donošenja odluke o dopuštenosti. Međutim, u svojoj odluci o dopuštenosti od 5. veljače 2004. godine Sud je odbacio tu tvrdnju, zaključivši da je formulacija Zakona bila nejasna i da Vlada nije dostavila nikakav uvjerljivi dokaz koji bi dokazao djelotvornost zahtjeva za sudsku zaštitu sucu izvršenja na temelju članka 17. Zakona.
31. Nakon odluke o dopuštenosti, Vlada je dostavila naprijed navedenu odluku, koju je nadležni sud donio 17. prosinca 2003. godine, tj. mjesec i pol dana prije odluke o dopuštenosti koju je donio Sud. Sud ne pridaje osobitu važnost ovome proteku vremena ili činjenici da Vlada nije tu odluku dostavila prije donošenja odluke o dopuštenosti. Po mišljenju Suda, mjesec i pol dana razmjerno je kratko razdoblje, tijekom kojega je razumno pretpostaviti da s obzirom na to da je odluku donio jedan od nižih sudova u zemlji, Vlada nije možda za nju znala. U takvim okolnostima, Sud smatra da Vlada nije izgubila pravo dostaviti novu odluku u potporu svojeg prethodno uloženog prigovora glede neiscrpljivanja domaćih pravnih sredstava.
32. Sud nadalje treba ispitati može li dostavljena odluka utjecati na utvrđenje Suda glede djelotvornosti predloženoga pravnog sredstva u okolnostima ovoga predmeta.
33. Sud podsjeća kako na području iscrpljivanja domaćih sredstava postoji podjela tereta dokaza. Na Vladi koja se poziva na to da pravna sredstva nisu bila iscrpljena je da uvjeri Sud da je to pravno sredstvo bilo učinkovito, na raspolaganju u teoriji i praksi u relevantno vrijeme, to jest, da je bilo dostupno, da je moglo ispraviti povrede u odnosu na prigovore podnositelja zahtjeva i da je nudilo razumne izglede za uspjeh. Međutim, kad se zadovolji ovaj zahtjev glede tereta dokaza, na podnositelju zahtjeva je da dokaže da je pravno sredstvo na koje se poziva Vlada bilo doista iscrpljeno ili je iz nekog razloga bilo nedostatno i nedjelotvorno u osobitim okolnostima predmeta ili su postojale posebne okolnosti zbog kojih su on ili ona bili oslobođeni tog uvjeta (vidi presudu u predmetu Akdivar and Others v. Turkey od 16. rujna 1996., Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, str. 1211, § 68).
34. U svjetlu odluke u predmetu V.Š. Sud ne isključuje da bi taj zahtjev za sudsku zaštitu mogao biti djelotvorno pravno sredstvo u odnosu na akte i odluke koje navodno predstavljaju povredu ljudskih prava zatvorenika zajamčenih domaćim pravom. U svakom slučaju, Vlada nije dokazala da je pravno sredstvo o kojemu je riječ bilo na raspolaganju prije 1. siječnja 2002. godine, kad su stupile na snagu odredbe Zakona koje se odnose na suca izvršenja (vidi stavak 24. ove presude).
35. U ovome predmetu, Sud primijećuje da je podnositelj zahtjeva prigovorio uvjetima svog boravka u zatvoru u KZL-u u razdoblju između siječnja 2001. i travnja 2003. godine. Dakle, on je već odslužio jednu godinu u KZL-u, u uvjetima kojima je prigovorio, prije nego je stvoren novi pravni lijek. Štoviše, on je svoj prigovor glede loših zatvorskih uvjeta podnio Sudu prije toga datuma. U takvim okolnostima, Sud ne prihvaća da je podnositelj zahtjeva trebao iscrpiti ovo pravno sredstvo.
36. Stoga prethodni prigovor Vlade treba odbiti.
II. NAVODNA POVREDA ČLANKA 3. KONVENCIJE
37. Podnositelj zahtjeva je prigovorio da su uvjeti u KZL-u, gdje je služio dio svoje kazne zatvora predstavljali nečovječno i ponižavajuće postupanje protivno članku 3. Konvencije koji propisuje:
„Nitko se ne smije podvrgnuti mučenju ni nečovječnom ili ponižavajućem postupanju ili kazni.“
38. Vlada je osporila to mišljenje. Tvrdili su da iako uvjeti u krilu B prije obnove nisu bili idealni, nisu predstavljali nečovječno i ponižavajuće postupanje.
39. Vlada je tvrdila da podnositelj zahtjeva nije poduzeo korake kako bi olakšao svoj boravak u KZL-u, budući je odbio raditi. Uvjeti njegovog boravka u zatvoru bili su objektivno bolji od uvjeta g. Benzana (citiran u ovoj presudi), jer je njegova ćelija bila smještena dalje od zajedničke kupaonice i stoga bila manje vlažna.
40. Konačno, Vlada je tvrdila da treba voditi računa o činjenici da je država, u granicama svoje financijske sposobnosti, stalno obnavljala KZL. Tvrdili su da takve pozitivne namjere od strane Vlade čine ovaj predmet različitim od predmeta Peers, u kojemu su nadležne vlaste propustile poduzeti mjere kojima bi bio cilj popraviti objektivno nepovoljne uvjete za služenje kazni zatvora (vidi predmet Peers v. Greece, br. 28524/95, stavak 75., ECHR 2001-III).
41. Podnositelj zahtjeva je tvrdio da su uvjeti njegovog boravka u zatvoru ukupno uzevši predstavljali nečovječno i ponižavajuće postupanje.
42. Kao što je Sud smatrao u puno navrata, članak 4. Konvencije sadrži jednu od najtemeljnijih vrijednosti demokratskog društva. On u apsolutnom smislu zabranjuje mučenje ili nečovječno ili ponižavajuće postupanje ili kaznu, bez obzira na okolnosti i ponašanje žrtve (vidi predmet Labita v. Italy [GC], br. 26772/75/ stavak 119., ECHR 2000-IV).
43. To rekavši, zlostavljanje mora doseći minimalnu razinu ozbiljnosti kako bi potpalo pod domašaj članka 3. Ocjena ove minimalne razine ozbiljnosti je relativna; ona ovisi o svim okolnostima predmeta, kao što je trajanje postupanja, njegovi fizički i mentalni učinci i, u nekim slučajevima, spol, dob i zdravstveno stanje žrtve. Nadalje, u razmatranju je li postupanje „ponižavajuće“ u smislu članka 3., Sud će uzeti u obzir je li cilj bio poniziti i umanjiti vrijednost dotične osobe i je li, što se tiče posljedica, ono imalo negativan utjecaj na njezinu osobnost na način nespojiv sa člankom 3. Međutim, nepostojanje takve svrhe ne može konačno isključiti utvrđenje povrede ove odredbe (vidi naprijed citirani predmet Peers v.Greece, stavci 67.-68. i predmet Valašinas v. Lithuania, br. 44558/98, stavak 101., ECHR 2001-VIII).
44. Sud je dosljedno naglašavao da trpljenje i poniženje koje je tu uključeno mora u svakom slučaju ići preko onoga neizbježnoga elementa trpljenja ili poniženja povezanog s danim oblikom legitimnog postupanja ili kazne. Mjere kojima se osoba lišava slobode mogu često uključivati takav element. Prema ovoj odredbi država mora osigurati da je osoba lišena slobode u uvjetima koji su sukladni s poštivanjem njenog ljudskog dostojanstva, da ju način i metoda izvršenja mjere ne podvrgavaju trpljenju ili nedaćama intenziteta koji premašuje neizbježnu razinu trpljenja inherentnu lišenju slobode, i da, s obzirom na praktične zahtjeve boravka u zatvoru, njezino zdravlje i dobrobit budu odgovarajuće osigurani (vidi predmet Kudła v. Poland [GC], br. 30210/96, stavci 93.-94., ECHR 2000-XI).
45. Sud primijećuje da su u ovome predmetu među strankama sporne određene okolnosti koje se tiču općih uvjeta lišenja slobode u KZL-u. Međutim, Sud smatra da čak iako je to tako, može donijeti svoju ocjenu predmeta oslanjajući se na tvrdnje stranaka, nalaze CPT-a i izaslanstva Suda čiji je pregled dan u ovoj presudi (vidi stavke 19. i 20. ove presude).
46. Nesporno je da je podnositelj zahtjeva bio smješten u krilu B od 3. siječnja 2001., kratko nakon što je bio po treći puta primljen u KZL, do 8. travnja 2003., kad je bio prebačen u obnovljeni dio zatvora. Tijekom toga vremena dijelio je ćeliju veličine 5.6m2 s drugim zatvorenikom, drugim riječima, bilo mu je dano 2.8m2 prostora. Tijekom razdoblja od dva mjeseca bio je sam u ćeliji. Iako taj prostor nije bio tako mali kao u nekim drugim predmetima koje je sud ispitivao u prošlosti (vidi, na primjer, predmet Kalashnikov v. Russia, br. 47095/99, stavak 97., ECHR 2002-VI), treba primijetiti da je prostor bio manji od 4m2, što je minimalni zahtjev za jednog zatvorenika u ćelijama s više zatvorenika i na temelju domaćeg prava i na temelju standarda CPT-a (vidi, na primjer, Izvješće CPT-a o posjeti Latviji 2002. godine - CPT/Inf (2005) 8, stavak 65.).
47. Vlada je tvrdila da je sam podnositelj zahtjeva bio djelomično odgovoran za to što je bio smješten u krilo B, jer je izjavio da ne želi raditi. Podnositelj zahtjeva nije zanijekao tu činjenicu. Sud ne prihvaća tvrdnju Vlade prema kojoj bi se uvjeti lišenja slobode u zatvoru mogli određivati na temelju činjenice je li zatvorenik radio ili nije, budući da svim zatvorenicima treba pružiti uvjete u zatvoru koji su u skladu s člankom 3. Konvencije.
48. Nadalje, nesporno je da u ćeliji podnositelja zahtjeva nije bilo zahoda ni tekuće vode. Glede mogućnosti korištenja zajedničkog zahoda, Vlada je tvrdila da su zatvorenici uvijek imali pristup do njega. Podnositelj zahtjeva je tvrdio da nije imao pristup zahodu kad je bio zatvoren u svoju ćeliju, ili tijekom noći. Umjesto toga, morao je urinirati u plastične kontejnere i njihov sadržaj bacati kasnije. I CPT i izaslanstvo Suda primijetili su taj problem. Sud stoga prihvaća navode podnositelja zahtjeva i smatra da je takva praksa bila ponižavajuća i da je doprinijela lošim higijenskim uvjetima u njegovoj ćeliji.
49. Sud mora nadalje utvrditi koliko je sati na dan podnositelj zahtjeva bio zatvoren u svojoj ćeliji. Vlada je tvrdila da su zatvorenici imali pravo na vježbanje na otvorenom dva puta na dan i da su im obroci posluživani izvan njihovih ćelija. Imali su i zajedničku sobu za TV. Međutim, i Vlada i podnositelj zahtjeva nisu točno naveli točan broj sati na dan koje su zatvorenici koji nisu radili bili zatvoreni u svojim ćelijama. Uzimajući u obzir činjenice kako su utvrđene u predmetu Benzan (cited above), posebice informacije dobivene od samog g. Benzana, Sud primijećuje da su zatvorenici u krilu B provodili nekoliko sati dnevno izvan svojih ćelija, jedući obroke i vježbajući na otvorenom. Međutim, isto tako se čini da su bili zatvoreni u svojim ćelijama od 7 sati navečer do 7 sati u jutro i nekoliko sati tijekom dana. Sud smatra da je to razdoblje znatno.
50. Sud nadalje prima na znanje druge prigovore koje je uložio podnositelj zahtjeva, glede vlažnih zidova, nečistoće njegove ćelije i ukupnih higijenskih uvjeta, za koje Vlada nije dala nikakvo uvjerljivo objašnjenje. Sud smatra da su utvrđeni čimbenici nedovoljnoga prostora, zajedno s nedostatkom pristupa zahodu kroz dulje od dvanaest sati na dan sami sebi dovoljni da podnositelju zahtjeva uzrokuju tegobe intenziteta koji premašuje neizbježnu razinu trpljenja inherentnu lišenju slobode.
51. Sud priznaje da je, nakon predmeta Benzan, Vlada poduzela potrebne korake i obnovila dotično krilo. Ovo pokazuje da je Vlada pokazala volju postupiti po preporukama Suda i drugih tijela Vijeća Europe, što je činjenica koju se ne može zanemariti. S druge strane, to ne može Vladu osloboditi krivnje glede događaja koji su prethodili obnovi.
52. U ovom predmetu je podnositelj zahtjeva proveo oko dvije godine i tri mjeseca u krilu B prije njegove obnove. Tijekom toga vremena bio je izložen naprijed opisanim uvjetima, koji su, po mišljenju Suda, predstavljali ponižavajuće postupanje protivno članku 3.
53. Stoga je došlo do povrede te odredbe.
III.PRIMJENA ČLANKA 41. KONVENCIJE
54. Članak 41. Konvencije propisuje:
"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."
A. Šteta
55. Podnositelj zahtjeva potražuje 1.000.000 eura (EUR) na ime naknade nematerijalne štete.
56. Vlada je taj iznos smatrala prekomjernim i nepotkrijepljenim.B. Troškovi i izdaci
58. Podnositelji zahtjeva, kojemu je bila dodijeljena pravna pomoć nije postavio nikakve daljnje zahtjeve s toga naslova glede troškova i izdataka. Stoga se ništa ne dosuđuje s toga naslova.
C. Zatezna kamata
59. Sud smatra primjerenim da se zatezna kamata temelji na najnižoj kreditnoj stopi Europske središnje banke uvećanoj za tri postotna boda.
IZ TIH RAZLOGA, SUD JEDNOGLASNO
1. Odbija prethodni prigovor Vlade;
2. Presuđuje da je došlo do povrede članka 3. Konvencije;
3. Presuđuje
(a) da tužena država podnositelju zahtjeva treba, u roku od tri mjeseca od dana kad presuda postane konačnom u skladu s člankom 44. stavkom 2. Konvencije, isplatiti slijedeći iznos koji treba pretvoriti u hrvatske kune prema tečaju važećem na dan namirenja
(i) 3.000 EUR (tri tisuće eura) na ime nematerijalne štete; i
(ii) svaki porez koji bi mogao biti zaračunat na taj iznos;
(b) da se od proteka naprijed navedena tri mjeseca do namirenja na naprijed navedeni iznos plaća obična kamata prema stopi koja je jednaka najnižoj kreditnoj stopi Europske središnje banke tijekom razdoblja neplaćanja, uvećana za tri postotna boda;
4. odbija ostatak zahtjeva podnositelja zahtjeva za pravednu naknadu.
Sastavljeno na engleskome jeziku i otpravljeno u pisanom obliku dana 9. ožujka 2006. godine u skladu s pravilom 77. stavcima 2. i 3. Poslovnika Suda.
Søren NIELSEN Christos ROZAKIS
tajnik Odjela Predsjednik
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF CENBAUER v. CROATIA
(Application no. 73786/01)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 March 2006
FINAL
13/09/2006
In the case of Cenbauer v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Loukis Loucaides,
Françoise Tulkens,
Peer Lorenzen,
Nina Vajić,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 14 February 2006,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 73786/01) against the Republic of Croatia lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights (“the Commission”) under former Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Croatian national, Mr Miroslav Cenbauer (“the applicant”), on 14 January 1997.
2. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, first by Ms L. Lukina-Karajković and subsequently by Ms Š. Stažnik.
3. The applicant complained, in particular, that the conditions of his detention at Lepoglava State Prison amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
4. The application was transmitted to the Court on 1 November 1998, when Protocol No. 11 to the Convention came into force (Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11).
5. The application was allocated to the First Section of the Court (Rule 52 § 1 of the Rules of Court). Within that Section, the Chamber that would consider the case (Article 27 § 1 of the Convention) was constituted as provided in Rule 26 § 1.
6. By a decision of 5 February 2004, the Chamber declared the application partly admissible.
7. The Government, but not the applicant, filed observations on the merits (Rule 59 § 1). The Chamber decided, after consulting the parties, that no hearing on the merits was required (Rule 59 § 3 in fine).
8. On 1 November 2004 the Court changed the composition of its Sections (Rule 25 § 1). This case was assigned to the newly composed First Section (Rule 52 § 1).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Outline of events
9. The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Viljevo, Croatia.
10. On 15 December 1993 the applicant was found guilty of several criminal offences, including murder, and sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment. He started serving his prison sentence on 4 January 1995 at Lepoglava State Prison (Kazneni zavod Lepoglava – “LSP”).
11. LSP is a building comprising five wings: A, B, C, D and E. All the wings have now been renovated. B wing was the last to be renovated, its renovation being completed in December 2003.
12. The applicant remained at LSP until 27 September 1995, when he was transferred to another prison. He was admitted to LSP for a second time on 30 December 1998.
13. On 4 October 1999 the applicant was transferred to Glina Penitentiary where he remained until 5 April 2000. Then he was transferred to Požega Penitentiary. During his stay in that institution, the applicant was granted various privileges, including the right to short periods of leave. After committing criminal offences (burglary and theft) while on leave, the applicant was again transferred to LSP on 21 September 2000. On 3 January 2001 he was placed in B wing.
14. On 8 April 2003 the applicant was transferred to a cell in the renovated part of B wing.
15. On 22 August 2003 the applicant was released as he had served his time in prison.
B. The parties' accounts
16. The applicant gave the following account of the detention conditions in B wing of LSP.
17. The cell he was placed in was small and there were neither sanitary facilities nor running water. There was no heating and the cell walls were damp and mouldy. The cell was dirty and the bed sheets were not changed for very long periods of time. In order to urinate at night and at other times when he was confined to his cell, the applicant had to use a four-litre plastic container in the shape of a bottle, because the guards refused to unlock his cell and let him use the toilet. Toiletries and other personal hygiene products were provided only every four to five months. The food served to the inmates was of insufficient quantity and poor quality; the inmates were served only carbohydrates, without any vegetables and hardly any meat. In general, the prison was overcrowded. The prison buildings, built about two hundred years ago, were in a very poor state of repair. As the prison guards did not wear badges with their number or name, the inmates did not know their identities. The prisoners were made to line up as many as ten times a day, even when it rained. They also had to take outdoor exercise daily in slippers, even when it rained or snowed.
18. The Government provided the following account of the applicant's detention conditions at LSP.
19. The applicant's cell was a double-occupancy cell. Most of the time the applicant shared it with another inmate and only for a period of about two months was he alone in the cell. The cell was 3.5 m long, 1.6 m wide (5.6 m2) and 3.05 m high. It had a 0.8 x 0.8 m (0.64 m2) window and one artificial light. There was no toilet in the cell although the applicant had permanent access to communal sanitary facilities and could use a shower. Inmates were provided with toothpaste, soap, shaving cream, disposable razors, shampoo and toilet paper on a monthly basis. The food served to the inmates was of the prescribed calorific value and in general the inmates had no complaints in that respect. The inmates were lined up several times a day before meals. The inmates who worked were also lined up when going to and coming from work and before and after their break. Inmates were lined up outdoors when the weather permitted and they were dressed appropriately. In bad weather inmates were lined up inside the prison building. The inmates were afforded a large outdoor exercise area and were able to attend film shows on Sundays.
20. The Government submitted that the renovation of B wing had been completed on 5 December 2003. It had been freshly painted and every cell had been provided with a toilet and washbasin. The cells now have parquet flooring, new furniture and radiators, new electric sockets and new ceiling lights. There are now four showers used by 35 to 40 inmates.
C. The findings of the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT)
21. The CPT visited Croatia between 20 and 30 September 1998. Its findings with regard to LSP were as follows (extract from the report to the Croatian government on the visit to Croatia carried out by the CPT from 20 to 30 September 1998, CPT/Inf. (2001) 4):
“a. Material Conditions
...
58. ... the two unrenovated wings, B and E, accommodating mainly unemployed prisoners, offered very poor conditions of detention. Prisoners in these wings were being held under cramped conditions, typically two to three persons in cells measuring between 5.5 to some 6.5 m2. The CPT must emphasise that cells of such size are only suitable for individual occupancy. Further, the cells were dirty and in a poor state of repair, and a number of them had poor access to natural light and/or dim or artificial lighting. In addition, they were not equipped with integral sanitation; as a result, at night inmates had to comply with the needs of nature using a plastic container in their cell. As for the communal sanitary facilities, they were in a generally woeful state of repair (some of them with hazardous flooded floors). It is also noteworthy that several prisoners in these two wings complained that they were not able to obtain necessary toiletries.
The director informed the delegation that the renovation of the whole establishment was planned, but that difficulties were being encountered in obtaining the necessary resources. The CPT must stress that the prevailing material conditions in B and E wings are quite unacceptable. Consequently, the Committee recommends that the renovation of these wings, including installation of in-cell sanitation following the model of D wing, be treated as a matter of high priority.
Moreover, the CPT recommends that steps be taken immediately to ensure that all prisoners at Lepoglava State Prison are able to obtain personal hygiene products (toilet paper, soap, toothpaste, etc.) as well as the necessary means to maintain their cells and communal sanitary facilities in a clean and hygienic state.
59. Further, as already indicated in paragraphs 56 and 58, the closed unit was overcrowded at the time of the visit. This was particularly the case in the unrenovated wings ...
The CPT recommends that serious efforts be made to reduce cell occupancy levels in the closed unit at Lepoglava State Prison ...
...
b. Regime
61. According to section 19 of the Law on Execution of Sentences, sentenced prisoners must be provided, to the extent possible given an establishment's facilities and resources, with various types of work appropriate to their abilities and skills. ...
62. Of the 660 prisoners in the closed and semi-open sections at Lepoglava State Prison, approximately 300 were engaged in various types of work activities, including woodworking and furniture production (employing 150 inmates), metalwork (20), arts and crafts, as well as a variety of posts involving the day-to-day operations of the prison (laundry, cooking, gardening, etc.). ...
63. Nevertheless, the fact remains that at the time of the visit, the majority of the prisoners in the establishment's closed unit – 324 out of 532 – were not working. 110 prisoners were on a waiting list for work. Further, 83 prisoners had been categorised as permanent non-workers, either through choice or disability, though many such prisoners interviewed by the delegation advanced that they did in fact wish to work.
The situation of the non-workers was rendered all the more unsatisfactory by the scarcity of other regime activities at the prison. Although the establishment was equipped with good educational facilities, only about 50 prisoners – including some who already worked – were attending classes. Further, there was little evidence of therapeutic (i.e. offence-focused) programmes and no organised sport activities. To sum up, almost two-thirds of the prisoners accommodated in the closed unit were subject to an impoverished regime; the typical daily programme for a non-working prisoner was found to consist of little else besides watching television in an association area and outdoor exercise.
64. ... For the majority of prisoners in the establishment's closed unit, there was no positive regime in place which might encourage them to address their offending behaviour.
The CPT recommends that the Croatian authorities take the necessary steps to ensure that all prisoners at Lepoglava State Prison have access to an appropriate range of work, educational, sports and recreational activities.”
D. Report of the fact-finding mission to Lepoglava State Prison
22. On 1 July 2002 a delegation of the Court visited LSP in connection with the Benzan case (see Benzan v. Croatia (friendly settlement), no. 62912/00, 8 November 2002). Its findings in respect of the general conditions at LSP were as follows:
“Meeting with the governor of LSP
The prison governor informed the delegation that the only unrenovated wing is B wing. He further informed the delegation that the prison held 683 inmates. He admitted that the prison was overcrowded, especially B wing.
Tour of LSP
B wing
We found cell 17 situated next to the communal bathroom. It measured 5.6 m2. There were no in-cell sanitary facilities. There were two non-working electrical sockets. There was a dim light on the ceiling. The window on the wall opposite the door measured 0.64 m2. There was one wooden chair and a metal locker. There was one set of bunk beds. The mattresses were dirty and bloodstained. The cell smelled strongly of moisture. The cement walls were damp to the touch.
Shower, toilet and laundry area
There were three toilets and two showers for 60 inmates. There was no heating in the toilet. In the shower there was one radiator. There was no toilet paper. Next to the showers there was a laundry area equipped with long basins for inmates to wash their clothes. The laundry area was accessible for one hour per day.
The indoor entertainment and recreation area
Next we visited a TV-room where we found one television, about 20 chairs and 7 tables. It served 60 inmates.
There was also a social room with 6 tables, each with 4 chairs, serving 44 inmates. We saw chess-boxes on the tables. Inside, there was one stove with two electric hotplates and one sink.
On each floor we saw table tennis equipment, each serving 44 inmates.
Renovated wing
Here we visited a cell which measured 11 m2. There were two sets of bunk beds. There was a separate bathroom with toilet and sink, but with no shower or bathtub. However, there were communal showers on the same floor. There was one electric socket, three lights on the ceiling, two metal lockers, two wooden chairs, one table and one shelf on the wall. There were two windows (0.64 m2). The room was freshly painted and had parquet floor. It was very clean.
Outdoor recreation area
We saw a large walking area, with benches and trees and an asphalt playground of large proportions.
The canteen
The canteen where the inmates eat is a huge room, separated from the other prison areas. It can accommodate 200 persons at a time. The inmates eat in shifts. Food is cooked on the premises and there is also a bakery.
Working area
The working area comprises several large workshops for wood-processing, production of chess boards, picture-framing, a bookbinding shop and book press and an art studio including a visual arts section.
The bookbinding shop where the applicant works has large windows, a desk and a chair.
The interviews
The applicant
The applicant informed the delegation that he had been placed in cell no. 17 in B wing sometime in May 2000 and had stayed there until August or September 2001. He reported that at the time of his arrival there had been no glass on the window, but that it had been repaired in a few days. The paint on the walls had been peeling off and the cell had been very damp. Sometime in 2001 the walls had been repainted in the entire wing. He further reported that although there had been a radiator in the cell, there had been no heating until the end of winter 2001, when the radiators had been repaired, but that even after that the heating had been insufficient. The applicant stressed that the toilets in B wing had been renovated to a certain degree and that they had been in a much worse state of repair. He said that there had been mould on the walls which was covered over with paint.
The applicant's daily routine is as follows:
7 a.m. – wake up
8-9 a.m. – breakfast and walk
10.30-11.30 a.m. – locked in cell
11.30 a.m. – lunch
12.30-1.30 p.m. – walk
3-5 p.m. – locked in cell
5.30 p.m. – dinner
from 7 p.m. – locked in cell
9 p.m. – lights off
The applicant complained that the inmates were always pressed for time for lunch and dinner because there were too many people, divided into several shifts. He also said that the food was of low quality, badly prepared, badly cooked and that the only edible food was bread. He said that most of the time he was hungry. The inmates are dressed in jeans and shirts that are replaced every two years. They are also provided with shoes, underwear and a jacket.
The applicant complained that the bed sheets were dirty, greasy and too short. The blankets were old, dirty and had not been washed for seven years. The mattress in his cell was old, rotting, bloodstained and soiled. The applicant also stated that medical assistance was only available once weekly on Mondays and that consultations with physicians were superficial, lasting one minute.
The prison governor
The prison governor admitted that there were two deaths from cardiac arrest this year and that a number of inmates suffered from hepatitis, though they were not placed in any special unit. He admitted further that in the whole area there was a water shortage because of the problems with water pressure. However, the bathrooms were open from 9.30 to 11.30 a.m. and from 4 to 5.30 p.m. As to the medical staff, he said that one physician, a specialist in general medicine, and a dentist, were employed full-time. There was at least one nurse on the premises at all times. Once a week physicians of different specialisation visited the prison (a lung specialist, a surgeon, an internist and an ophthalmologist).
He also reported that about 50% of inmates currently worked in the prison.”
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
23. Article 23 of the Croatian Constitution (Ustav Republike Hrvatske) provides as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to any form of ill-treatment ...”
24. The Enforcement of Prison Terms 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)) 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:
Section 17
“(1) An inmate may file 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.”
Section 74
“(1) The accommodation of the 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 m² and 10 m³ 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.”
Section 77
“(1) The penitentiary or prison shall supply the inmates with underwear, clothes and bed linen appropriate to the climatic conditions.”
Section 78
“(3) Inmates shall be served at least three meals daily with a calorific value of at least 3,000 kcal per day. The content and the nutritional value of the food shall be supervised by a doctor or other medically qualified person.”
THE LAW
I. THE GOVERNMENT'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
25. The Government maintained that the applicant had failed to exhaust domestic remedies as required by Article 35 of the Convention, the relevant parts of which provide:
“1. The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law ...
...
4. The Court shall reject any application which it considers inadmissible under this Article. It may do so at any stage of the proceedings.”
26. The Government argued that the applicant should have lodged a complaint with the judge responsible for the execution of sentences (sudac izvršenja) under section 17 of the Enforcement of Prison Terms Act. In this connection, they produced the copy of a decision of the Varaždin County Court (Županijski sud u Varaždinu) dated 17 December 2003, in which that court had accepted a similar complaint in the case of V.Š., an inmate serving his term at LSP. It had found that V.Š. had been in a cell smaller than the minimum size prescribed by law, that this fact violated his rights, and that he was to be transferred to another cell of appropriate size. With regard to his claim for damages, the Varaždin County Court had instructed V.Š. to institute civil proceedings against the State.
27. The Government considered that the above decision proved the effectiveness of a complaint under section 17 of the Act in respect of poor prison conditions. Since the submitted decision had been given shortly after the applicant had served his prison term, the Government claimed that the applicant should also have filed such a complaint prior to the lodging of his application.
28. The applicant disagreed with the Government. He maintained that the submitted decision was of no relevance to his case as it had in any event been given after he had been released from LSP.
29. The Court first has to ascertain whether the Government are estopped from submitting the non-exhaustion argument at this stage of the proceedings.
30. At the outset, the Court notes that the Government have already raised this objection at the admissibility stage. However, in its admissibility decision of 5 February 2004, the Court dismissed that argument, concluding that the wording of the Act was unclear and that the Government had failed to produce any convincing evidence to prove the effectiveness of a complaint to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences under section 17 of the Act.
31. Following the decision on admissibility, the Government submitted the above decision, given by the competent court on 17 December 2003, that is to say one and a half months before the Court's admissibility decision. The Court does not attach particular importance to this lapse of time or to the fact that the Government failed to submit the decision prior to the decision on admissibility. In the Court's view, one and a half months is a relatively short period of time, during which it is reasonable to assume that, the decision having been given by one of the lower courts in the country, the Government may not have taken cognisance thereof. In these circumstances, the Court considers that the Government are not estopped from submitting the new decision in support of their previously argued objection concerning the non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
32. The Court has further to examine whether the submitted decision can influence the Court's finding as to the effectiveness of the suggested remedy in the circumstances of the present case.
33. The Court reiterates that in the area of the exhaustion of domestic remedies there is a distribution of the burden of proof. It is incumbent on the Government claiming non-exhaustion to satisfy the Court that the remedy was an effective one available in theory and in practice at the relevant time, that is to say, that it was accessible, was one which was capable of providing redress in respect of the applicant's complaints and offered reasonable prospects of success. However, once this burden of proof has been satisfied, it falls to the applicant to establish that the remedy advanced by the Government was in fact used or was for some reason inadequate and ineffective in the particular circumstances of the case or that there existed special circumstances absolving him or her from the requirement (see Akdivar and Others v. Turkey, 16 September 1996, § 68, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV).
34. In the light of the decision in the case of V.Š., the Court will not exclude that such a complaint could be an effective remedy in respect of acts or decisions which allegedly violate an inmate's rights guaranteed under the domestic law. In any event, the Government have not proved that the remedy in issue was available before 1 January 2002, when the provisions of the Act concerning the judge responsible for the execution of sentences came into force (see paragraph 24 above).
35. In the present case, the Court notes that the applicant complained of the conditions of his imprisonment at LSP in the period between January 2001 and April 2003. He had therefore already served one year at LSP, in the conditions complained of, before the new remedy was created. Moreover, he lodged his complaint regarding poor prison conditions with the Court before that date. In these circumstances, the Court does not accept that the applicant was required to make use of the above remedy.
36. The Government's preliminary objection must therefore be dismissed.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
37. The applicant complained that the conditions at LSP, where he served part of his prison sentence, amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention, which provides:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
38. The Government contested this view. They maintained that, while the conditions in B wing before its renovation had not been ideal, they had not amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment.
39. The Government claimed that the applicant had failed to undertake steps to make his stay at LSP easier, since he had refused to work. The conditions of his imprisonment had been objectively better than those of Mr Benzan (see Benzan, cited above), because his cell had been situated further away from the common bathroom and had therefore been less damp.
40. Finally, the Government claimed that account should be taken of the fact that the State, within the limits of its financial capacity, had been continuously renovating LSP. They submitted that such positive intentions on the part of the Government distinguished the present case from Peers v. Greece (no. 28524/95, § 75, ECHR 2001-III), in which the competent authorities had failed to take measures aimed at improving the objectively unacceptable conditions for serving prison sentences.
41. The applicant maintained that the conditions of his imprisonment taken overall had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.
42. As the Court has held on many occasions, Article 3 of the Convention enshrines one of the most fundamental values of a 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).
43. This being said, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3. 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 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. However, the absence of such a purpose cannot conclusively rule out a finding of a violation of this provision (see Peers, cited above, §§ 67-68, and Valašinas v. Lithuania, no. 44558/98, § 101, ECHR 2001-VIII).
44. 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 Article 3 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 (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR 2000-XI).
45. The Court notes that in the present case the parties have disputed certain circumstances pertaining to the general conditions of detention at LSP. However, the Court considers that, even so, it can make its assessment of the case relying on the parties' submissions, the findings of the CPT and the Court's delegation outlined above (see paragraphs 21 and 22 above).
46. It is undisputed that the applicant was housed in B wing from 3 January 2001, shortly after he was admitted to LSP for the third time, until 8 April 2003, when he was transferred to the renovated part of the prison. During that time he shared a cell measuring 5.6 m² with another inmate, in other words, he was afforded 2.8 m² of space. During a period of two months he was alone in the cell. Although this space was not as small as in some other cases the Court has examined in the past (see, for example, Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 97, ECHR 2002‑VI), it must be noted that the space was smaller than 4 m², which is the minimum requirement for a single inmate in multi-occupancy cells under both the domestic law and the CPT standards (see, for example, the CPT report on its visit to Latvia in 2002 – CPT/Inf (2005) 8, § 65).
47. The Government claimed that the applicant himself had been partly responsible for being placed in B wing, because he had stated that he did not want to work. The applicant did not deny this fact. The Court does not accept the Government's argument that conditions of imprisonment could be determined according to whether an inmate was working or not, since all inmates should be afforded prison conditions which are in conformity with Article 3 of the Convention.
48. It was further undisputed that there was no toilet or running water in the applicant's cell. As to the possibility of using the common toilet, the Government argued that the inmates always had access to it. The applicant claimed that he had had no access to the toilet when he was confined to his cell or during the night. Instead, he had had to urinate in plastic containers and then dispose of their contents at a later time. The CPT and the Court's delegation both observed the problem. The Court therefore accepts the applicant's assertion and considers that such a practice was humiliating and contributed to the unsanitary conditions in his cell.
49. The Court must further establish how many hours a day the applicant had been confined to his cell. The Government submitted that the prisoners were entitled to outside exercise twice a day and that their meals were served outside their cells. They also had a common TV room. However, both the Government and the applicant failed to specify the exact number of hours a day for which the non-working prisoners were confined to their cells. Taking into account the facts as established in Benzan (cited above), in particular the information obtained from Mr Benzan himself, the Court observes that the prisoners in B wing spent several hours a day outside their cells, having meals and taking outside exercise. However, it also appears that they were confined to their cells between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. and for several hours during the day. The Court considers this period to be substantial.
50. The Court further takes note of the other complaints raised by the applicant, concerning mouldy walls, the dirtiness of his cell and the overall unsanitary conditions, for which the Government have produced no convincing explanation. It considers that the established factors of insufficient space coupled with a lack of access to the toilet for over twelve hours a day are in themselves sufficient to cause the applicant hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention.
51. The Court recognises that, following Benzan, the Government have undertaken the necessary steps and renovated the wing in question. The foregoing proves that the Government have shown a willingness to comply with the recommendations of the Court and of other bodies of the Council of Europe, a fact that cannot be disregarded. On the other hand, it cannot exculpate the Government with regards to the events preceding the renovation.
52. In the instant case, the applicant spent about two years and three months in B wing prior to its renovation. During that time he was exposed to the conditions described above, which in the Court's view amounted to degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention.
53. There has therefore been a breach of that provision.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
54. 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.”
A. Damage
55. The applicant claimed 1,000,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
56. The Government found that amount excessive and unsubstantiated.
57. The Court considers that the applicant must have suffered some non-pecuniary damage as a result of his detention in the described conditions. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 3,000 under this head, plus any tax that may be chargeable on this amount.
B. Costs and expenses
58. The applicant, who was granted legal aid, did not make any further claims in respect of costs and expenses. Accordingly, no award is made under this head.
C. Default interest
59. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
1. Dismisses the Government's preliminary objection;
2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;
3. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months from the date on which the judgment becomes final according to Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 3,000 (three thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into Croatian kunas at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;
4. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 March 2006, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Søren Nielsen Christos Rozakis
Registrar President
baza unakrsnih veza