Published on 14 November 2022

FIRST SECTION

Applications nos. 55792/20 and 35253/21 Branislav ADAMÄŒO against Slovakia lodged on 15 December 2020 and 1 July 2021 respectively communicated on 25 October 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The applicant, who has been detained since 2006, alleges that he has had to undergo hundreds of “thorough strip searches” ( dôkladná osobná prehliadka ), including stripping naked and squatting, in particular prior to and after every open visit and transfer between different detention facilities. This concerns in particular visits by his four lawyers between 22 January and 8 February 2019 during his detention in the Košice detention facility, when they visited him eight times and he had to undergo this search several times in one day. Moreover, during that search the prison guards allegedly examined the contents of personal documents containing his and his lawyers’ notes. Furthermore, the applicant asserts that he had to undergo such a search prior to and after his transfer from Leopoldov to Košice detention facility on 5 February 2018. The applicant contests the systematic nature and the manner of these searches and argues that they are not justified by any security concerns, given that he has never been found in possession of any prohibited material, nor have such concerns been advanced by the prison authorities. Furthermore, the applicant asserts that during the transfer between prisons in question, he was obliged to wear joint shackles, dark glasses and earmuffs and did not come into contact with any other prisoners. Therefore, he could not pose any security risk, in particular in the receiving detention facility. Lastly, the applicant contends that the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and the Constitutional Court reviewed his complaints only formalistically, without giving actual answers to his specific arguments. The applicant raises complaints under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the frequency and the manner of the execution of the thorough strip searches as well as the alleged absence of security concerns, has the applicant been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see Frérot v. France , no. 70204/01, § 47, 12 June 2007, Roth v. Germany , nos. 6780/18 and 30776/18, §§ 70-72, 22 October 2020)?

2. Alternatively, have these searches been in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Dejnek v. Poland , no. 9635/13, § 70, 1 June 2017, Wainwright v. the United Kingdom , no. 12350/04, §§ 40 and 42, ECHR 2006 ‑ X)?

3. Has the examination of the content of the applicant’s personal documents containing his and his lawyers’ notes been in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention? In particular, have the prison authorities had reasonable cause to believe that the privileged channel of communication between the applicant and his lawyers is being abused (see Campbell v. the United Kingdom , 25 March 1992, § 48 Series A no. 233)?

3. Given the allegedly formalistic review of the applicant’s complaints by the PPS and the Constitutional Court, did the applicant have at his disposal effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention (see Maslák v. Slovakia (no. 2) , no. 38321/17, §§ 167-168 and 175, 31 March 2022)?

The Government are invited to submit information concerning the number of open visits received by the applicant (including, but not only, from his lawyers) since 2006, as well as how many times the applicant has been transferred between different prisons, in which context the applicant was subjected to the searches in question. The Government are further invited to submit any records related to the impugned searches, including the alleged inspection of the applicant’s personal documents.