Zdenko SIMUNOVSKI v Croatia - 42550/08 [2010] ECHR 246 (12 February 2010)

[ Home ] [ Databases ] [ World Law ] [ Multidatabase Search ] [ Help ] [ Feedback ] [ DONATE ] European Court of Human Rights You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Zdenko SIMUNOVSKI v Croatia - 42550/08 [2010] ECHR 246 (12 February 2010) URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/246.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 246 [ New search ] [ Contents list ] [ Printable RTF version ] [ Help ] 12 February 2010 FIRST SECTION Application no. 42550/08 by Zdenko ŠIMUNOVSKI against Croatia lodged on 14 August 2008 STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Zdenko Šimunovski, is a Croatian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Šibenik. A. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In March 2005 the applicant was placed in pre-trial detention following the institution of criminal proceedings against him on charges of sexual intercourse with a minor. On 21 March 2006 the Osijek County Court found the applicant guilty as charged and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment. The applicant was sent to serve his prison term. On 14 February 2007 the Supreme Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant has been detained in various penal institutions in Croatia. On numerous occasions he complained to various prison authorities, including the governors and heads of departments of prisons he had been placed in, and to the Head of Prison Administration, of the following: – the general conditions of his detention and, in particular, overcrowded conditions in VaraZdin Prison, where he shared a cell measuring 8 square metres with three other inmates; – the constant opening or loss of his correspondence, both private and that addressed to various State institutions, including his correspondence with the Court; – the fact that no individual programme had been drawn up for him, although the relevant provisions of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act require that an individual programme be drawn up for each inmate; – that the inmates were not provided with any newspapers. As regards his stay in Šibenik Prison ( Zatvor u Šibeniku ), the applicant complained that although the Head Prison Administration had granted him conjugal visits as well as the right to use his own laptop computer and printer, the prison authorities had denied him these rights. He also complained that he had been unable to draw his pension from his bank account. It appears that the applicant has never received a response to his complaints. B. Relevant domestic law The relevant provisions of the Enforcement of Prison Sentences Act ( Zakon o izvršavanju kazne zatvora , Official Gazette nos. 128/1999 and 190/2003) read as follows: PURPOSE OF A PRISON TERM Section 2 “ The main purpose of a prison term, apart from the humane treatment and respect for the personal integrity of a person serving a prison term ... is the development of his or her capacity for life after release in accordance with the laws and general customs of society.” PREPARATION FOR RELEASE AND ASSISTANCE AFTER RELEASE Section 13 “ During the enforcement of a prison sentence a penitentiary or prison shall, together with the institutions and other legal entities in charge of assistance after release, ensure that a prisoner is prepared for his or her release [from prison].” COMPLAINTS Section 15 “ (1) Inmates shall have the right to complain about any act or decision of a prison employee. (2) Complaints shall be lodged orally or in writing with a prison governor, the judge responsible for the execution of sentences, or the Head Office of the Prison Administration. Written complaints addressed to the judge responsible for the execution of sentences or the Head Office of the Prison Administration shall be submitted in an envelope which the prison authorities may not open ...” JUDICIAL PROTECTION AGAINST ACTS AND DECISIONS OF THE PRISON ADMINISTRATION Section 17 “ (1) An inmate may lodge a request for judicial protection against any acts or decisions unlawfully refusing him, or limiting, any of the rights guaranteed by this Act. (2) Requests for judicial protection shall be decided by the judge responsible for the execution of sentences.” INDIVIDUAL PRGRAMME FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF A PRISON TERM Section 69 (1) The individual programme for the enforcement of a prison term (hereinafter “the enforcement programme”) consists of a combination of pedagogical, working, leisure, health, psychological and safety acts and measures with the aim of organising the time spent during the prison term according to the character and needs of the prisoner and the type and facilities of a particular penitentiary or prison. The enforcement programme shall be designed with a view to fulfilling the purposes of a prison term under section 7 of this Act. (2) The enforcement programme shall be drawn up by a prison governor at the proposal of a penitentiary or a prison's expert team ... (3) The enforcement programme shall contain information on ... special procedures (... psychological and psychiatric assistance ... special security measures ...) ...” COMPLAINTS The applicant complains about the general conditions of his detention and, in particular, that during his time in VaraZdin prison he was confined to a cell measuring 8 square metres with four other inmates. He further complains that he submitted a number of complaints to various prison authorities. These complaints concerned the conditions of his detention, the opening of his correspondence, lack of an individual programme, and refusal of some of the rights which had already been granted to him by the Head of Prison Administration (such as conjugal visits and the use of a laptop computer and printer), and to the fact that he could not draw his pension from his bank account. No response to these complaints has been received. The applicant also complains that a number of his letters, both private ones and those addressed to various State institutions and the Court, have been lost by the prison authorities; that no record is kept of the mail handed to the prison authorities by inmates; and that he is often required to hand his letters to the authorities, including those addressed to the Court, unsealed. The applicant complains that the Head of Prison Administration granted him conjugal visits and the right to use his own laptop computer and printer, but that the Šibenik Prison personnel have denied him these rights. The applicant complains that he has not been provided with any newspapers. The applicant complains that he is not able to draw his pension, which is paid into his bank account. Lastly, the applicant complains about corruption in various State institutions. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Do the conditions of the applicant's detention, in particular the size of his cell, the number of inmates occupying the same cell, and the other material conditions of his detention amount, individually or cumulatively, to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? In this regard, the Government are requested to provide detailed information on the following: the conditions in which the applicant has been detained, including information about the periods the applicant spent in each penal institution; the size of each of the dormitories the applicant has been detained in, their state of repair and the number of inmates; access to drinking water, toilet and washing facilities; access to natural light and fresh air; hygiene, food, clothing, heating, ventilation, outdoor activities; the opportunity to work; the availability of educational and leisure facilities; and the applicant's daily regime during each of the periods concerned. Does the applicant have access to a court in respect of his complaints concerning his prison conditions, including his complaints under Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? Has there been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his private and family life on account of the fact that the Šibenik Prison authorities denied him conjugal visits and the right to use his own laptop computer and printer, although he had been granted these rights by the Head of Prison Administration? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? Has there been an interference with the applicant's right to respect for his correspondence, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2? Has there been an interference with the applicant's freedom of expression, in particular his right to receive information and ideas, within the meaning of Article 10 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the fact that he has not been provided with any newspapers while in prison? If so, was that interference prescribed by law and necessary in terms of Article 10 § 2? Has there been an interference with the applicant's peaceful enjoyment of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, on account of his inability to draw his pension from his bank account? If so, does that interference impose an excessive individual burden on the applicant? The Government are invited to submit copies of the applicant's prison record, a record of any mail he has handed over to the prison authorities, a record of any complaints made by the applicant to the prison or other authorities, and the response given to the applicant in connection with such complaints. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII URL: https://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/246.html