FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 256/14 Gregor Å TRLEKAR against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fifth Section ), sitting on 30 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Angelika Nußberger , President, Boštjan M. Zupančič , Vincent A. D e Gaetano , judges, and Milan Blaško , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 December 2013 ,

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

Ha ving deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Gregor Å trlekar , is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Ljubljana . He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Verce , a lawyer practising in Ljubljana .

The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Nata š a 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 was detained in the remand section of Ljubljana prison from 10 August 2013 to 13 August 2013 and from 21 August 2013 to 21 October 2013. On 14 August 2013 he was first transferred to the University Psychiatric Hospital Ljubljana. On 22 October 2013 he was hospitalised in the Department for Forensic Psychiatry Maribor.

In his application of 18 December 2013 the applicant submitted that during his detention in the remand section of Ljubljana prison from 10 August 2013 to 21 October 2013 he had suffered from severe overcrowding, inadequate ventilation during the summer and excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time.

In his observations of 28 January 2015 the applicant submitted that from 22 October 2013 to 16 January 2014 he had been detained in the Department for Forensic Psychiatry Maribor where he had suffered from inhuman treatment.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

For the relevant domestic law and practice see Bizjak v. Slovenia ( dec. ), no. 25516/12 , 8 July 2014, §§ 6-11.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand section of Ljubljana prison and in the Department for Forensic Psychiatry Maribor amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

Under Article 13 of the Convention the applicant complained that he had not had at his disposal any effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Article 3 regarding his detention in the remand section of Ljubljana prison .

THE LAW

A. Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention

The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention had been inhuman and degrading. He invoked Article 3 of the Conv ention, which reads as follows:

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

As regards the part of the application regarding the applicant ’ s detention t he Government pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies . They relied on the case of Bizjak v. Slovenia (cited above) when arguing that a claim for compensation under Article 179 of the Civil Code is an effective remedy in a case as the present one, where the application to the Court was lodged after the applicant has been released from the remand section of Ljubljana prison.

The applicant maintained that a claim for compensation could not be considered effective in view of the domestic practice.

As regards the relevant principles on the rule on exhaustion of domestic remedies, the Court refers to paragraphs 24 ‑ 26 of its decision in the case of Bizjak , where it has already assessed the effectiveness of a claim for compensation in respect of allegedly ina dequate conditions of detention .

In Bizjak ( cited above, § 34) the Court concluded that the remedy at issue should in principle be used by a person who intended to claim, after the release, that his or her prison conditions had been incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention .

The factual background in the present case is similar to the one in the case of Bizjak . At the time of lodging of his application to the Court the applicant in the present case was no longer detained in the remand section of Ljubljana prison.

As regards the applicant ’ s objections as to the ineffectiveness of the domestic compensatory remedy, they are based on the same arguments as adduced by the applicant in Bizjak (cited above, § 23). Those allegations were not accepted in Bizjak ( cited above, §§ 35-44), and the Court sees no reasons that would lead it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.

T he Court therefore concludes that the applicant was obliged, under Article 35 of the Convention, to pursue the remedy under Article 179 of the Civil Code, which he has not done.

Therefore, this part of the application must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

As regards the complaint regarding the detention in the Department for Forensic Psychiatry Maribor from 22 October 2013 to 16 January 2014, the Court considers that there are no reasons to depart from its above finding as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies. Since also in respect of this complaint the applicant failed to avail himself of the above compensatory remedy, this part of the application must similarly be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

Moreover, the Court notes t hat this part of the application concerns a separate period of detention (see, mutatis mutandis , Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 129, 22 May 2012) . As this complaint was introduced only on 28 January 2015, this part of the application is also inadmissible for the applicant ’ s failure to comply with the six-month rule within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 and 4 of the Convention.

B. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention

The applicant complained that he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards the conditions of his detention in Ljubljana prison . He relied on Article 13 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

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

Even assuming that Article 13 is applicable, the Court notes that it has already found that a claim for compensation under Article 179 of the Civil Code would have provided the applicant with a potentially effective remedy for his complaint under Article 3 of the Convention. That finding is valid also in the context of the present applicant ’ s complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

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.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 23 July 2015 .

Milan Blaško Angelika Nußberger Deputy Registrar President