CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 avril 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   Communicated on 21 April 2016   SECOND SECTION Application no. 10697/15 Saša SRDOČ against Croatia lodged on 2 July 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Saša Srdoč, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1978 and lives in Rijeka. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. In the period between 15 October 2013 and 28 November 2014 the applicant served a prison sentence in Zagreb Prison ( Zatvor u Zagrebu ). On the latter date he was transferred to Gospić Prison ( Zatvor u Gospiću ), where he continued to serve his prison sentence. On 10 August 2014 the applicant complained to the sentence-execution judge of the Zagreb County Court about the conditions of his detention in Zagreb Prison ( Županijski sud u Zagrebu ). He alleged in particular that he did not have sufficient personal space at his disposal; the cell at issue did not have fully separated sanitary facilities and the dining table was only about one and a half metres away from the open sanitary facilities; the cell was inadequately maintained and dirty, and the hygiene conditions in general were poor. The applicant also alleged that the cell was inadequately equipped with furniture and the prisoners were not given sufficient items for personal care and hygiene; he was locked inside the cell for twenty-two hours a day and the existing recreational facilities were inadequate given that there was no possibility of using a toilet nor any access to drinking water during outdoor exercise. Moreover, he was obliged to disclose his medical condition to the prison administration in order to obtain an examination by the doctor. On 17 August 2014 the applicant complained to the prison administration of Zagreb Prison of the inadequate conditions of his detention, in particular the poor hygiene conditions and the impossibility to have a haircut. On 9 September 2014 the applicant reiterated his complaints to the prison administration of Zagreb Prison. On 15 October 2014 the applicant again complained to the sentence-execution judge of the Zagreb County Court of the inadequate conditions of his detention. He reiterated the complaints he had already raised before the sentence-execution judge and the prison administration and further stressed, in particular, that the prison authorities interfered with his correspondence and refused to allow him to contact his lawyers or family at weekends. The applicant specifically complained that the prison authorities had failed to forward him a package containing valuable items sent by his wife. He also contended that he had been unjustifiably denied the opportunity of engaging in prison work and had therefore been discriminated against in comparison with other prisoners whose occupational activities allowed them to enjoy more favourable treatment in detention. The applicant never received a reply to his complaints. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains, under Article 3 of the Convention, of the inadequate conditions of his detention in Zagreb Prison. He also complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, that the prison authorities failed to forward to him a package containing valuable items sent by his wife although, according to the information obtained from the postal service, the package had been delivered to the prison; and that the prison authorities interfered with his correspondence and refused to allow him to contact his lawyers or family at weekends. The applicant further complains, under Article 13 of the Convention, that he did not have an effective domestic remedy for his Article 3 and 8 complaints. Lastly, the applicant complains, under Article 14 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, that without any objective justification he was given no opportunity to engage in prison work, and was therefore discriminated against in comparison with other prisoners whose occupational activities allowed them to enjoy more favourable treatment in detention.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Zagreb Prison, in particular in view of the size of his cell and the number of inmates placed in the same cell at the material time, or any other aspect of his detention related to sanitary and hygiene conditions and nutrition, work opportunities, and access to recreational and educational activities, amount specifically or cumulatively to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Was there an unjustified and disproportionate interference with the applicant’s private and family life and the confidentiality of his correspondence, particularly related to the seizure of a parcel belonging to him and to the supervision and limitation of correspondence with his family and lawyers, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Articles 3 and 8 complaints concerning the conditions of his detention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?   4.     Was the applicant subjected to an unjustified difference in treatment during his internment in Zagreb Prison compared with other prisoners who were given the possibility of occupational engagement, contrary to Article   14 in conjunction with Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to provide detailed information about the conditions in which the applicant has been detained. This should include information about the size of each of his dormitories and their state of repair. They should also indicate whether he had access to drinking water, toilet and washing facilities, natural light and fresh air, hygiene, food, clothing, heating, ventilation, outdoor activities, the opportunity to work, and educational and leisure facilities, as well as contact with the outside world. The domestic authorities’ decisions concerning the applicant’s use of relevant domestic remedies should also be submitted.