Published on 9 October 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 9152/23 Miroslav SKUBAN against Slovakia lodged on 16 February 2023 communicated on 18 September 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

According to his submissions, the applicant has been detained since 2008, first on remand and then for the purposes of serving a sentence. He alleges that, in this context, he has had to undergo countless “thorough strip searches” ( dôkladná osobná prehliadka ) comprising, inter alia, stripping naked and squatting, in particular prior to and after transfers within the prison system (including for court hearings, health checks and work), after any visit and on the occasion of any routine inspection in prison. He asserts that he was most recently forced to submit to this procedure under threats of violence after a closed visit ( bez priameho kontaktu ) on 10 February 2023, despite his objections that his state of health made squatting painful.

The applicant contests the systematic nature and the manner of these searches, arguing that they are not individually justified by any security concerns advanced by the prison authorities. Lastly, the applicant asserts he has not had any effective remedy for his grievances at the domestic level, since the Public Prosecution Service (PPS) and the Constitutional Court would review his complaints only pro forma. The application raises issues under Articles 3, 8 and 13 of the Convention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies for his Convention complaints under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 35 § 1?

2. Having regard to all the circumstances, including the frequency and the manner of the execution of the thorough strip searches, the applicant’s state of health and 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, Piechowicz v. Poland , no. 20071/07, §§ 175-76, 17 April 2012, and Roth v. Germany , nos. 6780/18 and 30776/18, §§ 70-72, 22 October 2020)?

3. 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, and Wainwright v. the United Kingdom , no. 12350/04, §§ 40 and 42, ECHR 2006 ‑ X)?

4. Given the allegedly routine and pro forma nature of the review 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, §§ 167-68 and 175, 31 March 2022)?

The Government are invited to submit information concerning the number of the applicant’s thorough strip searches since 2008 together with copies of the relevant records (if any).