Published on 2 January 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 41955/22 Branislav ADAMÄŒO against Slovakia lodged on 24 August 2022 communicated on 8 December 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

While being deprived of liberty in a criminal-law context, on 22 July 2021, the applicant was escorted for a hearing before the Košice I District Court and subsequently, on the same day, brough back to prison. Except for the time when he was heard by the court, he was restrained by a special device consisting of handcuffs and leg cuffs, connected by a chain that was attached to a belt. In addition, he was guarded by five guards.

Relying on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complains that, during a break in the court hearing, he was refused a request to have one of his hands released from the restraining device to be able to use the toilet.

In addition, under Article 8 of the Convention, he complains that on his return to prison he was subjected to a “thorough strip search” ( dôkladná osobná prehliadka ) which he considers arbitrary in view of the circumstances.

Lastly, the applicant argues that, in violation of Article 13 of the Convention, the Public Prosecution Service and the Constitutional Court denied him an effective remedy in relation to the violations of his rights under Articles 3 and 8.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the refusal of his request to have one of his hands released from the restraining device to go to the toilet during the break in the court hearing on 22 July 2021 subject the applicant to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Shlykov and Others v. Russia , nos. 78638/11 and 3 others, § 78, 19 January 2021, and, a contrario , Canan v. Turkey (dec.), no. 19139/12, §§ 28-33, 10 March 2015, and K. v. Italy and the Federal Republic of Germany , no. 5078/71, Commission decision of 14 December 1972, Decisions and Reports (DR) 46, pp. 35-41)?

2. Alternatively, did the refusal to release one of the applicant’s hands from the special restraining device to use the toilet on that occasion amount to an interference with his right to respect for his private life and, if so, was it necessary in a democratic society as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?

3. Did the applicant’s “thorough strip search” on his return to prison on 22 July 2021 amount to an interference with his right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the Convention?

If so, was it necessary in a democratic society as required by Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Wainwright v. the United Kingdom , no. 12350/04, §§ 42-43, ECHR 2006 X; Milka v. Poland , no. 14322/12, § 48, 15 September 2015; and Dejnek v. Poland , no. 9635/13, §§ 70 et seq ., 1 June 2017)?

4. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?