FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 6170/10 Drago MAJCEN against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 25 June 2013 as a Chamber composed of:

Mark Villiger , President, Angelika Nußberger , Boštjan M. Zupančič , Ann Power-Forde, Ganna Yudkivska , Helena Jäderblom , Aleš Pejchal , judges, and Claudia Westerdiek , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 December 2009,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Drago Majcen , is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1958 and lives in Murska Sobota . He is represented before the Court by Odvetniška Družba Matoz D.O.O., a law firm practising in Koper .

The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs N. Pintar Gosenca , State Attorney.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant has been serving his sentence in the closed section of Dob Prison from 4 October 2002.

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

Between 9 October 2002 and 4 October 2004 the applicant was held in cell no 3, Block 4 which measured 59.25 square metres and held fifteen inmates (3.95 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). Subsequently, he was transferred to a single cell in Block 1, which measured 7.14 square metres. On 7 December 2004 he was, due to his health problems, transferred into one of the smaller shared cells in Block 1 that serve as patients rooms, measuring approximately 32 square metres and accommodating four inmates (approximately 8 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). On 28 September 2007 the applicant was transferred into cell no 7, Block 4 which measured 58.94 square metres and held 15 inmates (3.93 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). On 17 June 2010 he was placed in cell no 37, Block 1 that served as patient room and measured approximately 15.83 square metres and accommodated 3 inmates (5.28 square metres of personal space available to each inmate). On 21 June 2010 the applicant was, upon his request, transferred back to a regular room.

From October 2002 until August 2010 the applicant was on 258 occasions treated for different health problems in the prison clinic. He has inter alia been undergoing a methadone-maintenance treatment and has been treated by the prison psychiatrist. Between 19 July 2008 and 21 July 2008 the applicant was hospitalised in the Novo mesto General Hospital in connection to a problem with appendicitis.

On 29 October 2008 the applicant was diagnosed with hepatitis C. After the infection had been diagnosed, the applicant was referred to an infectologist for the first examination but he initially refused to be examined. He was then examined on 27 March 2009 in the Novo mesto General Hospital by an infectologist who, due to seriousness of the applicant ’ s condition, referred him to the University Medical Centre in Ljubljana for a second opinion. The applicant refused to undergo the aforementioned examination in the University Medical Centre in Ljubljana. Between 26 March 2010 and 30 March 2010 the applicant was hospitalised in the Novo mesto General Hospital due to the deterioration of his condition. According to the reports drawn up by a prison doctor dated 13 August 2010 and 7 December 2010 the applicant had on several occasions also refused to be examined whereas the applicant ’ s hepatitis C has been treated according to the medical practice.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

For the relevant domestic law and practice, see paragraphs 33-35 and 38-47 of the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Štrucl and Others v. Slovenia (nos. 5903/10, 6003/10 and 6544/10, 27 September 2011), and paragraphs 34-36 of Mandić and Jović v. Slovenia (nos. 5774/10 and 5985/10, 27 September 2011), Lalić and Others , cited above, as well as Mešić v. Slovenia (no. 5767/10, 22 November 2011).

COMPLAINTS

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

In addition, the applicant complained that he had suffered from hepatitis C, but had not received adequate treatment while in prison. After the Court request ed the applicant to specify his complaint concerning his hepatitis C infection the applicant submitted that the domestic authorities were responsible for his infection with hepatitis C.

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

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

THE LAW

The Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government ’ s objections concerning the issue of exhaustion of domestic remedies and compliance with the six-month rule, as the application should in any event be declared inadmissible for the reasons set out below.

As regards the applicant ’ s complaint that the domestic authorities were responsible for his infection with hepatitis C and that he had not received adequate medical assistance regarding his hepatitis C infection, the Court recalls that Article 3 imposes an obligation on the States to ensure that the health and well-being of detainees are adequately secured by, among other things, providing them with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 94, ECHR 2000-XI). The Court would further note that information relating to detention often falls within the knowledge of the domestic authorities. Accordingly, applicants might experience certain difficulties in procuring evidence to substantiate a complaint in that connection. Still, in such cases applicants may well be expected to submit at least a detailed account of the facts complained of and to provide – to the greatest possible extent – some evidence in support of their complaints (see, mutatis mutandis , Visloguzov v. Ukraine , no. 32362/02 , § 45, 20 May 2010 ).

Turning to the circumstances of the present case, the Court notes that the applicant failed to provide evidence or details as regards his allegations. The Court recalls that in his initial application the applicant did not explicitly submit that he believed that he had contracted hepatitis C during his stay in prison and that his infection was attributable to the domestic authorities but only submitted general observations of the risk of spreading infectious diseases in prison. The applicant later also did not dispute the contention of the respondent Government of 23 December 2010 that he could have been infected already prior to his admission to prison, since an ordinary medical check-up does not suffice to reveal chronic hepatitis and the disease can remain asymptomatic for extended periods of time. Further, the applicant, upon the Court ’ s request to specify his complaints concerning his hepatitis C infection, in his reply of 4 July 2012 still failed to provide any more concrete information but again solely submitted general allegations that the cause of infection could be found in the allegedly poor hygiene conditions and inappropriate medical care. Furthermore, according to the information available to the Court, it does not appear that the applicant ever brought to attention of domestic authorities that he believed he had contracted hepatitis C in prison, which would trigger a procedural obligation of the domestic authorities under Article 3 of the Convention to investigate his infection (see, a contrario , Mitkus v. Latvia , no. 7259/03 , § 70, 2 October 2012) . Finally, the Court notes that the applicant did not dispute the Government ’ s submissions on the adequacy of his treatment, including the submissions that he had visited the doctor on 258 occasions, and that he had himself been on several occasions refusing additional examinations and treatments (see, similar case, Mešić v. Slovenia , cited above ). It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

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

The Court takes note of the similar factual background of the aforementioned case and the present application, including the fact that the present applicant always had sufficient personal space in the cell in which he was detained. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court by a majority

Declares the application inadmissible.

Claudia Westerdiek Mark Villiger Registrar President