Communicated on 13 March 2019<\/p>\n
THIRD SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no. 38321\/17
\nMiroslav MASL\u00c1K against Slovakia
\nand 8 other applications
\n(see list appended)<\/p>\n
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/p>\n
The applications concern the applicant\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Has the applicant\u2019s 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, \u00a7\u00a7 158-65, 17 April 2012, with further references; Cs\u00fcll\u00f6g v. Hungary, no. 30042\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 27-31, 7 June 2011)?<\/p>\n 2. Alternatively, has the applicant\u2019s 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?<\/p>\n 3. In the light of the applicant\u2019s complaint concerning the refusals of visits with direct contact, was the interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (see Piechowicz, cited above, \u00a7 212)?<\/p>\n 4. Having regard to the refusal of the domestic courts to review the decisions on the applicant\u2019s 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\u2019s right to access to a court been violated?<\/p>\n 5. Having regard to the lack of judicial review of the decisions rejecting visits with direct contact, has the applicant\u2019s right to access to a court under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention been violated (see Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912\/01, \u00a7\u00a7 103-107 and 119, ECHR 2009, with further references; De Tommaso v. Italy [GC], no. 43395\/09, \u00a7\u00a7 148-150, 23 February 2017)?<\/p>\n 6. In the light of the applicant\u2019s complaint about the decision of the Constitutional Court by which the applicant\u2019s constitutional complaint of 13 February 2017 was set aside (file no. Rvp 315\/2017), has the applicant\u2019s right to access to a court under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention been violated?<\/p>\n 7. In the light of the applicant\u2019s 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. \u00daS 429\/2017) and of 2 July 2017 (file no. III. \u00daS 598\/2017), has there been a violation of his right to a fair hearing under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention (see \u010ci\u010dmanec v. Slovakia, no. 65302\/11, \u00a7 59, 28 June 2016)?<\/p>\n 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?<\/p>\n The Government are invited to submit copies of all relevant decisions and documents concerning the grounds for the applicant\u2019s placement in the high security unit and its extensions. The Government are further invited to submit the relevant parts of the applicant\u2019s 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n The Government are also invited to submit the Constitutional Court\u2019s files nos. Rvp 315\/2017, I. \u00daS 429\/2017 and III. \u00daS 598\/2017.<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n File no.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Case name<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Date of lodging<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Introduced by<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n 1.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 38321\/17<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Masl\u00e1k v. Slovakia<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 22\/05\/2017<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n M. MASL\u00c1K<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 2.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 82925\/17<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Masl\u00e1k v. Slovakia<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 04\/12\/2017<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n M. MASL\u00c1K<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 3.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 156\/18<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Masl\u00e1k v. Slovakia<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 22\/12\/2017<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n M. MASL\u00c1K<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 4.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 7426\/18<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Masl\u00e1k v. Slovakia<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 31\/01\/2018<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n M. MASL\u00c1K<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 5.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 9755\/18<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Masl\u00e1k v. Slovakia<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 12\/02\/2018<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n M. MASL\u00c1K<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 6.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 14907\/18<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Masl\u00e1k v. Slovakia<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 19\/03\/2018<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n M. MASL\u00c1K<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 7.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 29635\/18<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Masl\u00e1k v. Slovakia<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 08\/06\/2018<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n M. MASL\u00c1K<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 8.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 29636\/18<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Masl\u00e1k v. Slovakia<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 08\/06\/2018<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n M. MASL\u00c1K<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n 9.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 35668\/18<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Masl\u00e1k v. Slovakia<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n 19\/07\/2018<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n M. MASL\u00c1K<\/span><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/div>\n\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n