CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 février 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 4 March 2024   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 19083/20 Miloš CEKIĆ against Serbia lodged on 7 April 2020 communicated on 13 February 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is serving a long-term prison sentence. He alleges that in 2009, while in Sremska Mitrovica Penitentiary, he was placed under several isolation measures lasting 195 days in total. He claims that he spent 180 days (2 times for 90 days) in a small, dirty, damp cell with three other inmates, and another 15 days in complete isolation. In 2010, during a medical check-up, it was discovered that he had contracted tuberculosis. The applicant was then transferred to the Prison Hospital in Belgrade and later to the Clinical Centre, where he underwent treatment and was released to continue his sentence. In 2011 the applicant lodged a civil claim against the State claiming compensation, under the general rules of tort law, on account of fear he had suffered because of tuberculosis, physical pain during the illness, deterioration of his health and on account of a breach of his right to life and health. He complained about the conditions of detention, which, he claimed, had deteriorated his health to such an extent that he had contracted tuberculosis in prison. He further complained that he had not been given adequate medical treatment. On 5 June 2017 the Belgrade Court of First Instance dismissed his claim as unfounded. That decision was upheld on appeal in December 2017. On 11 July 2019 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal (this decision was served on the applicant on 10 October 2019). Invoking Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant essentially complains about the conditions of detention in the cells in which he was placed while under the isolation measures. He further complains that he contracted tuberculosis in prison and was then not provided with adequate medical treatment. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article   35 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, did the applicant invoke before the national authorities, at least in substance, the rights under Article 3 on which he now wishes to rely before the Court?   2.     If so, have the conditions of the applicant’s detention while he had been under isolation measures amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, in particular, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no.   7334/13, §§   91-141, ECHR 2016, as regards principles and standards for the assessment of the minimum personal space per detainee in prisons, and Neshkov and Others v. Bulgaria , nos. 36925/10 and 5 others, §§   225-244, 27   January 2015, as regards other material conditions)? In that regard, the Government are requested to provide the following information: (a)     the periods during which the applicant was held in cells for the purposes of the above-mentioned isolation measures; the number of detainees held together with him in each of those cells (if that number was different in different periods, the Government is expected to indicate each period and the number of detainees corresponding to each period and cell); (b)     the overall dimensions and material condition of these cells (in particular, the dimensions and condition of the in-cell sanitary facilities, availability of natural light and air, artificial ventilation, adequacy of temperature regulation, type and sizes of windows in those cells and of shutters/bars installed on windows, possibility of using the toilet in private, and compliance of the cells with basic sanitary and hygienic requirements).   3.     Was the applicant infected with tuberculosis in prison? If so, did this fact in itself amount to a violation of Article 3 of the Convention? Assuming that the applicant did not contract tuberculosis while in prison, have the conditions of detention of the applicant been such as to contribute to the development of tuberculosis (see Dobri v. Romania , no. 25153/04, §   53, 14   December 2010)? Additionally, the Government are invited to inform the Court about the conditions of detention of the applicant after it was established that he had contracted tuberculosis.   4.     Has the State complied with its positive obligation under Article 3 of the Convention to establish effective methods for the prevention and detection of contagious diseases in prisons (see Dobri , cited above, § 51)? The Government are invited to inform the Court whether the applicant was examined for presence of tuberculosis after his admission to prison (ibid. , §   50). If not, the Government are invited to inform the Court if the applicant had access, within a reasonable time after his admission to prison, to free screening tests for tuberculosis (see Cătălin Eugen Micu v.   Romania , no.   55104/13, § 56, 5 January 2016).   5.     Did the applicant receive adequate medical assistance for tuberculosis (see , mutatis mutandis , Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 92-94, ECHR   2000-XI, and Neshkov and Others , cited above, § 244)?   6.     Has the State complied with its procedural obligation under Article 3   of the Convention to investigate the circumstances in which the applicant had contracted tuberculosis (see, mutatis mutandis , Shchebetov v.   Russia , no.   21731/02, § 51, 10 April 2012)?