DECISION OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC

#71Decision of the European Court of Human Rights in favour of the Slovak Republic

European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), it ruled on two complaints (No. 41510/16 and 81651/17) filed by the complainant while serving a sentence for the criminal offense of trafficking in narcotic and psychotropic substances. The complaints concerned the same legal issues, namely the possibility of judicial review of the decisions of the prison authorities and allegedly different judicial procedures in this regard. Complaint no. 41510/16 is based on the fact that in the month of June 2013, the applicant was found to have a large amount of drugs that the doctor had previously prescribed for him, but which he should have used or returned by then. Based on the act for which the applicant was convicted, this fact was assessed as a disciplinary offence, for which he was placed in a closed area of ​​the institution to serve a ten-day prison sentence.

Complaint no. 81651/17 is based on the fact that the applicant requested permission to receive visits with direct contact in November 2015 and January 2016, but due to his behaviour in that month, this contact was refused. The complainant tried to challenge the decision of the prison authority in the administrative courts, which later found in all cases that they did not have the authority to act on the matter and forwarded it to the relevant prosecutor's office for review according to special regulations. The complainant subsequently challenged the referral of his complaint to the Prosecutor's Office of the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, but was unsuccessful, as this case was within the jurisdiction of the Prosecutor's Office and not the court.

The applicant then complained to the ECHR that, as a result of the above-mentioned procedure, he did not do anything that was contrary to § 6 Article 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that he can apply to the court to examine his objection, but according to Article 13 of the Convention, he is not even entitled to an effective remedy against his objection. In his complaint regarding the denial of access to direct contact, the applicant also claimed that his right to respect for private and family life had been interfered with.

The European Court of Human Rights, after reviewing the case and the parties' positions, rejected the complaint. He stated that the protection of the complainant's rights was entrusted to the prosecutor's office according to special legal provisions regarding the execution of the sentence and the status and functions of the prosecutor's office. Its decisions can subsequently be reviewed by the Constitutional Court on complaints under Art. 127 of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic. The complainant claimed that the prosecution's review was not "complete, impartial and effective". However, he did not substantiate his claim with other factual or legal evidence, except that he does not agree with such a procedure.

The ECHR considers that the applicant has not presented any arguments why the described review mechanism decided by the prison authorities does not meet the requirements of the Convention. Since the complainant did not try to use this mechanism, there is no reason to question its functionality in his particular case. The European Court of Human Rights therefore concluded that the above objection is clearly unfounded. Furthermore, the ECHR stated that, in view of the above conclusions, it cannot be claimed that the applicant suffered any significant disadvantage within the meaning of Article 35 para. 3 letters b) convention on the subject of his complaint to the court.

Since the issue is already resolved at the national level, the respect for human rights in the applicant's case does not require an examination of the merits of the case. Finally, the ECHR stated that, although the applicant invoked Article 8 of the Convention, he did not provide any separate justification for the resulting violation of his substantive rights. Therefore, no decision is required in this regard. For the reasons stated above, the ECHR considered the appeals inadmissible and rejected them in their entirety.