FIRST SECTION
CASE OF HRNČIĆ v. CROATIA
(Application no. 53563/16)
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
STRASBOURG
29 September 2022
 
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Hrnčić v. Croatia,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
Erik Wennerström,
Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 8 September 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Croatia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 1 September 2016. 2. The applicant was represented by Ms L. Horvat, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. 3. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 5. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention. THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained about the inadequate conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
Article 3
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
As regards the applicant’s detention in the Varaždin Prison in the period between 27 January and 17 March 2008
7. The Court notes that the applicant, inter alia, complained of inadequate conditions of detention in the Varaždin Prison in the period between 27 January and 17 March 2008, whereas he took the relevant preliminary step to bring his action for compensation for inadequate conditions of detention on 8 January 2013. Since the applicant brought his civil action outside of the three-year statutory limitation period, the Government’s objection that he did not properly exhaust domestic remedies in respect of that period, must be accepted. 8. It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. As regards the remainder of the application
9. As regards the remaining periods complained of (see table appended below), the Court notes that the applicant was kept in detention in poor conditions. The details of his detention are indicated in the appended table. The Court refers to the principles established in its case‑law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Muršić v. Croatia [GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 96‑101, ECHR 2016). It reiterates in particular that a serious lack of space in a prison cell weighs heavily as a factor to be taken into account for the purpose of establishing whether the detention conditions described are “degrading” from the point of view of Article 3 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos. 42525/07 and 60800/08, §§ 149‑59, 10 January 2012). 10. In the leading cases of Muršić, cited above, §§ 69-73 and 91-173, and Ulemek v. Croatia, no. 21613/16, §§ 71-120 and 126‑46, 31 October 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 11. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. 12. In particular, the Government submitted that the applicant had only been spending between seven and nine hours in his cell during the night whereas the rest of the time he had either worked or been able to move freely within his ward. In addition, he had been allowed to spend two hours per day outdoors. The Government also pointed out that the Court had previously found no violation of Article 3 of the Convention in similar circumstances (see Dolenec v. Croatia, no. 25282/06, §§ 133-36, 26 November 2009). 13. The Court reiterates its finding in Muršić, a Grand Chamber judgment subsequent to Dolenec (cited above), that a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 arises where the personal space available to a detainee falls below 3 sq. m of floor surface. That presumption can only be rebutted if certain factors are cumulatively met, inter alia, if the reductions in the required minimum personal space of 3 sq. m are short, occasional and minor (see Muršić, cited above, §§ 137-38). However, the periods in which the applicant in the present case disposed of less than 3 sq. m were neither short nor occasional (see the appended table). 14. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court thus considers that in the instant case the applicant’s conditions of detention were inadequate. 15. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
16.

Article of the Convention at issue: Article 3
Outcome: violation