FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 10697/15 Saša SRDOČ against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 November 2020 as a Committee composed of:

Alena Poláčková , President, Gilberto Felici , Raffaele Sabato, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 July 2015,

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

1 . The applicant, Mr Saša Srdoč , is a Croatian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Rijeka. He was represented before the Court by Ms M. Budimir, a lawyer practising in Pula.

2 . The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik .

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

4 . On 15 October 2013 the applicant started serving a prison sentence in Zagreb Prison ( Zatvor u Zagrebu ).

5 . On 8 and 13 January 2014 the applicant complained to the administration of Zagreb Prison of the lack of space in the prison and of insufficient access to recreational activities. He was also dissatisfied with the assessment of his individual prison sentence programme and with his limited contact with the outside world.

6 . On 13 August 2014 the appli cant complained to the sentence ‑ execution judge of the Zagreb County Court ( Ž upanijski sud u Zagrebu ) about the conditions of his detention in Zagreb Prison. He alleged in particular that he did not have sufficient personal space; the cell was inadequately equipped with furniture and lacked basic hygiene and sanitary requirements. Moreover, he was locked inside the cell for twenty-two hours a day and the available recreational facilities were inadequate given that there was no possibility of using a toilet or having any access to drinking water during outdoor exercise. Furthermore, the applicant was obliged to disclose his medical condition to the prison administration in order to obtain an examination by the doctor.

7 . On 19 August 2014 the County Court requested Zagreb Prison to submit observations on the applicant ’ s complaints.

8 . On 17 August 2014 the applicant again complained to the administration of Zagreb Prison of the inadequate conditions of his detention, in particular the poor hygiene conditions and the impossibility of having a haircut. This complaint could not be found in the records of Zagreb Prison.

9 . On 9 September 2014 the applicant reiterated his complaints to the administration of Zagreb Prison. This complaint could also not be found in the records of Zagreb Prison.

10 . On 28 October 2014 the applicant a gain complained to the sentence ‑ execution judge of the Zagreb County Court of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He reiterated the complaints he had already raised with the sentence-execution judge and the prison administration and further stressed, in particular, that the prison authorities had interfered with his correspondence and refused to allow him to contact his lawyers or family at weekends. He further complained that the prison authorities had failed to forward to him a package containing valuable items sent by his wife. He also contended that he had been unjustifiably denied the opportunity to engage in prison work and that he had therefore been discriminated against in comparison with other prisoners, whose occupational activities allowed them to enjoy more favourable treatment in detention.

11 . On 31 October and 20 November 2014 Zagreb Prison delivered to the County Court its observations on the applicant ’ s request for judicial protection.

12 . On 28 November 2014 the applicant was transferred to Gospić Prison ( Zatvor u Gospiću ), where he continued to serve his prison sentence.

13 . On 30 November 2014 the sentence-execution judge of the Zagreb County Court made an official note in which he stated that there was no need for further examination of the applicant ’ s complaints regarding the conditions of his detention in Zagreb Prison, owing to the fact that on 28 November 2014 the applicant had been transferred to another prison facility. The case was archived.

14 . On 1 April 2015 the applicant lodged a request with the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office ( Općinsko državno odvjetništvo u Zagrebu ) for an amicable settlement of the dispute, seeking compensation for inadequate conditions of detention in Zagreb Prison, Gospić Prison and Lepoglava State Prison ( Kaznionica u Lepoglavi ).

15 . On 13 July 2015 the Zagreb Municipal State Attorney ’ s Office informed the applicant that it considered his claim unfounded and refused the settlement proposal.

16 . According to the available information, the applicant did not initiate civil proceedings against the State at the relevant domestic court with a view to obtaining damages for inadequate conditions of detention.

17 . The relevant domestic law is set out in the cases of Ulemek v. Croatia ( no. 21613/16, §§ 38-40, 31 October 2019) , and Muršić v. Croatia ( [GC], no. 7334/13, § 43, 20 October 2016).

COMPLAINTS

18 . The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention that the conditions of his detention in Zagreb Prison had been inadequate and that he had not had an effective domestic remedy in respect of that complaint.

19 . He further complained, under Article 8 of the Convention, that the prison authorities had failed to forward to him a package containing valuable items sent by his wife, and that the prison authorities had interfered with his correspondence and refused to allow him to contact his lawyers or family during the weekends.

20 . Lastly, he complained under Article 14 of the Convention that, without any objective justification, he had not been provided with the possibility of engaging in prison work, and had therefore been discriminated against in comparison with other prisoners whose occupational activities allowed them to enjoy more favourable treatment in detention .

THE LAW

21 . The applicant relied on Articles 3, 8, 13 and 14 of the Convention.

22 . The Government submitted that, contrary to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant had lodged his application with the Court outside the six-month time-limit, calculated from the date he had left the prison facility complained about. The applicant did not comment on this point.

23 . Article 35 § 1 of the Convention reads as follows:

“The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.”

24 . The Court reiterates that, in the context of conditions of detention, special rules on the calculation of the six-month time-limit apply in cases where an applicant has been held under different detention regimes and/or in different facilities. In this connection the Court has held that the period of an applicant ’ s detention should be regarded as a “continuing situation” as long as the detention has been effected in the same type of detention facility in substantially similar conditions. However, the applicant ’ s release or transfer to a different type of detention regime, whether within the same facility or elsewhere, would put an end to the “continuing situation”. The complaint about the conditions of detention must be lodged within six months of the end of the situation complained about or, if there were effective domestic remedies to be exhausted, of the final decision in the process of exhaustion (see Ulemek , cited above, § 92, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia , nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, § 78, 10 January 2012).

25 . The Court notes that in the present case the applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Zagreb Prison had been inadequate and that he had not ever received any decision from the national authorities about his complaints. The Court further notes that his detention in Zagreb Prison ended on 28 November 2014, when he was transferred to Gospić Prison, and that afterwards he did not use any domestic remedies which might have addressed his complaints at the domestic level (contrast Ulemek , cited above, §§ 115 and 118). Thus, the six-month period in respect of the situation complained about in Zagreb Prison started to run on 28 November 2014. However, the applicant did not lodge his application with the Court until 2 July 2015, more than six months later.

26 . It follows that the complaints about the applicant ’ s detention in Zagreb Prison between 15 October 2013 and 28 November 2014 have been lodged out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention (see also Šimunovski v. Croatia ( dec. ), no. 42550/08, 21 June 2011).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 10 December 2020 .

Renata Degener Alena Poláčková Deputy Registrar President