29 Nov Conditions of detention in Croatia

In the case Ulemek v. Croatia (application no. 21613/16) the European Court of Human Rights found a violation of Article 3 (degrading treatment) – concerning the conditions of Mr Ulemek’s detention in Zagreb Prison and no violation of Article 3 – concerning the conditions of Mr Ulemek’s detention in Glina State Prison of the Euopean Convention on Human Rights.

The applicant, Dušan Ulemek, is a Croatian national who was born in 1982.

 The case concerned the applicant’s complaint about the conditions of his detention in two prisons and of a lack of effective domestic remedies. In March 2010 Mr Ulemek was given a prison sentence of 18 months for aiding and abetting robbery. He spent 27 days in Zagreb Prison in May-June 2011 and the rest of his sentence in Glina Prison before being released on parole in September 2012. 

Relying in particular on Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman or degrading treatment) of the European Convention on Human Rights, the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in both prisons.

The Court noted that the applicant had barely 3 sq. m of personal space and at some points even below. Moreover, the Court took into consideration that concerns over the conditions of detention in Zagreb Prison were already expressed by the Constitutional Court, the Ombudsman, and the CPT. In these circumstances, irrespective of the relative brevity of the applicant’s stay in Zagreb Prison, the Court finds that the conditions of the applicant’s detention amounted to a degrading treatment incompatible with the requirements of Article 3 of the Convention.

As regards the conditions of the applicant’s detention in Glina State Prison, the Court notes that while the impugned reduction in the personal space is capable of giving rise to a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3, it considers that there were sufficient factors to rebut such a presumption. In this connection, the Court notes that the period in question immediately preceded the applicant’s release; that the applicant had sufficient freedom of movement as the cell was never locked; that he was engaged in various activities related to the preparation for his release; and that the overall conditions in the special cell for release were satisfactory. Thus, there was no violation of Article 3 of the Convention regarding the detention in Glina State Prison.

References from the official website of the European Court of Human Rights