CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 mars 2019

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s20FC8552 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11.5pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sF28C8B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s4E9FF9F2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .sFC16598D { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .sF920FE69 { font-family:Arial; color:#f8f8f8 } .s9C58967C { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; background-color:#5f5f5f } .s69AE3175 { border-top:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-right:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; border-left:0.75pt solid #f8f8f8; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#5f5f5f } .sAE011EF4 { border:0.75pt solid #5f5f5f; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s85016119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:11pt } .sEA7BCE7D { border:0.75pt solid #0072bc; padding-right:5.03pt; padding-left:5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#e8e8e8 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt }   Communicated on 13 March 2019     THIRD SECTION Application no. 38321/17 Miroslav MASLÁK against Slovakia and 8 other applications (see list appended) SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the applicant’s placement, continuing confinement and conditions in the high security unit in several Slovakian prisons for preventive and security reasons since 19 June 2015, restrictions on his visiting rights and the absence of judicial review of these measures. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant’s confinement in the high security unit as of 19 June 2015 onwards and the restrictions imposed on him in connection with his placement in the high security unit attained the minimum level of severity required by Article 3 of the Convention? If so, has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (see Piechowicz v. Poland , no. 20071/07, §§ 158-65, 17   April 2012, with further references; Csüllög v. Hungary , no. 30042/08, §§   27-31, 7   June 2011)?   2.     Alternatively, has the applicant’s protracted confinement in the high security unit and the restrictions imposed on him in this connection constituted a violation of Article 8 of the Convention?   3.     In the light of the applicant’s complaint concerning the refusals of visits with direct contact, was the interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention (see Piechowicz , cited above, § 212)?   4.     Having regard to the refusal of the domestic courts to review the decisions on the applicant’s placement in the high security unit and its subsequent extensions, does Article 6 of the Convention apply to the decisions on placement as well as to the decisions extending his confinement in the high security unit? If yes, has the applicant’s right to access to a court been violated?   5.     Having regard to the lack of judicial review of the decisions rejecting visits with direct contact, has the applicant’s right to access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention been violated (see Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, §§ 103-107 and 119, ECHR 2009, with further references; De   Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395/09, §§ 148-150, 23   February 2017)?   6.     In the light of the applicant’s complaint about the decision of the Constitutional Court by which the applicant’s constitutional complaint of 13   February 2017 was set aside (file no. Rvp 315/2017), has the applicant’s right to access to a court under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention been violated?   7.     In the light of the applicant’s complaint about the failure of the Constitutional Court to communicate to him a copy of the written documents obtained by the prison authorities in the proceedings concerning his constitutional complaints of 19 May 2017 (file no. I. ÚS 429/2017) and of 2 July 2017 (file no. III. ÚS 598/2017), has there been a violation of his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see Čičmanec v. Slovakia , no. 65302/11, § 59, 28 June 2016)?   8.     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?   The Government are invited to submit copies of all relevant decisions and documents concerning the grounds for the applicant’s placement in the high security unit and its extensions. The Government are further invited to submit the relevant parts of the applicant’s personal file from all three prison facilities where the applicant was placed in the high security unit, describe the material conditions and regime in the high security unit in all three prison facilities separately, including any restrictions imposed on the applicant during his placement in this unit and submit the records of any further restrictions of applicant’s personal liberty, such as using the handcuffs, etc. Furthermore, the Government are invited to submit a list of visits from family and non-family members received by the applicant since 19 June 2015, indicating the visits with direct contact, and supporting documents.   The Government are also invited to submit the Constitutional Court’s files nos. Rvp 315/2017, I. ÚS 429/2017 and III. ÚS 598/2017. APPENDIX       File no. Case name Date of lodging Introduced by 1. 38321/17 Maslák v. Slovakia 22/05/2017 M. MASLÁK 2. 82925/17 Maslák v. Slovakia 04/12/2017 M. MASLÁK 3. 156/18 Maslák v. Slovakia 22/12/2017 M. MASLÁK 4. 7426/18 Maslák v. Slovakia 31/01/2018 M. MASLÁK 5. 9755/18 Maslák v. Slovakia 12/02/2018 M. MASLÁK 6. 14907/18 Maslák v. Slovakia 19/03/2018 M. MASLÁK 7. 29635/18 Maslák v. Slovakia 08/06/2018 M. MASLÁK 8. 29636/18 Maslák v. Slovakia 08/06/2018 M. MASLÁK 9. 35668/18 Maslák v. Slovakia 19/07/2018 M. MASLÁK