Published on 9 October 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 8280/23 Ján TATIČ against Slovakia lodged on 14 February 2023 communicated on 18 September 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

According to his submissions, the applicant has been detained since 2015, 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 every transfer within the prison system (including for interrogations and court hearings), and on the occasion of any routine inspections of accommodation facilities in prison. The most recent such search took place on 15 November 2022.

The applicant contests the systematic nature and the manner of these searches, arguing 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 transfers in question, he is obliged to wear joint shackles and generally does not come into contact with any other prisoners. There are therefore no grounds for him posing any security risk. Lastly, the applicant asserts that 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 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, 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 2015 together with copies of the relevant records (if any).