FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 12339/12 Marinko BEGIĆ against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 November 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Angelika Nußberger , President, Boštjan M. Zupančič , Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges , and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 February 2012,

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 Marinko Begić , is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Ljubljana. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Ahlin , a lawyer practising in Ljubljana.

2 . The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs. Andreja Vran , State Attorney.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

4 . The applicant was detained in the remand section of Ljubljana prison from 21 September 2011 to 21 November 2011. At the time of lodging his application to the Court he had already been released from Ljubljana prison.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

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

COMPLAINTS

6 . The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in the remand section of Ljubljana prison amounted to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.

7 . 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.

8 . Lastly, under Article 14 of the Convention the applicant complained of discrimination between prisoners with different financial situations. As the prices in a prison shop were higher than in the general marketplace, some prisoners could buy fewer goods than others.

THE LAW

A. Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention

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

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

10 . The applicant alleged, in particular, that he had suffered from severe overcrowding, inadequate ventilation during the summer and excessive restrictions on out-of-cell time.

11 . The Government, relying on the same arguments as in the case of Bizjak (cited above, §§ 17-22), pleaded non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. They argued that the applicant had an effective remedy at his disposal, a claim for compensation under Article 179 of the Civil Code, which he had failed to use.

12 . The applicant maintained that a claim for compensation could not be considered effective. He alleged that the domestic proceedings had been lengthy and that the amount of compensation awarded by domestic courts is low (with the judgment of 9 May 2011 domestic courts awarded only EUR 2,290).

13 . 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 inadequate conditions of detention . In Bizjak , the applicant had already been released from Ljubljana prison at the time of lodging his application to the Court.

14 . The Court concludes that the remedy at issue should in principle be used by a person in the applicant ’ s situation who intends to claim that his or her prison conditions were incompatible with Article 3 of the Convention (see Bizjak , cited above, § 34).

15 . 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 Ljubljana prison. Furthermore , the applicant ’ s objections as to the ineffectiveness of the remedy, namely the length of domestic compensation proceedings and the amount of compensation awarded at domestic level, are based on the same arguments as those 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.

16 . As the situation of the applicant in the present case is similar to the one of the applicant in the case of Bizjak and as the Court sees no reason to depart from the findings in that case, it concludes, as in Bizjak , 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.

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

B. Complaint under Article 13 of the Convention

18 . The applicant complained that he did not have any effective remedy at his disposal as regards the conditions of his detention . 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.”

19 . As in Bizjak (cited above, § 48), the Court concludes that, even assuming that Article 13 is applicable, 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 and that that finding is valid also in the context of the complaint under Article 13 of the Convention.

20 . 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.

C. Complaint under Article 14 of the Convention

21 . Lastly, the applicant complained of discrimination between prisoners with different financial situations. He alleged that, since the prices in the prison shop, notably for coffee, were higher than those in the general marketplace, some prisoners could buy fewer goods than others. He invoked Article 14 of the Convention, which reads as follows:

“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in [the] Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”

22 . The Court reiterates that Article 14 complements the other substantive provisions of the Convention and its Protocols. It has no independent existence since it has effect solely in relation to “the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms” safeguarded by those provisions. Although the application of Article 14 does not presuppose a breach of those provisions – and to this extent it is autonomous – there can be no room for its application unless the facts at issue fall within the ambit of one or more of the latter (see, among many other authorities, Kurić and Others v. Slovenia [GC], no. 26828/06 , § 384, ECHR 2012 (extracts)).

23 . It is noted that the applicant did not claim that he had been required to buy food in the prison shop in order to get adequate nutrition, but he alleged that the prices in the prison shop were higher than in the general marketplace. However, the Convention does not guarantee, as such, any right to a specific level of prices. Thus, the facts alleged by the applicant do not fall within the ambit of one or more of the substantive provisions of the Convention or its Protocols.

24 . As in Bizjak (cited above, § 53), the Court concludes that the complaint under Article 14 is incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Stephen Phillips Angelika Nußberger Registrar President