The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention.<\/p>\n
FIRST SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Hrn\u010di\u0107 v. Croatia,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The case originated in an application against Croatia lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 1 September 2016.<\/p>\n 2. The applicant was represented by Ms L. Horvat, a lawyer practising in Zagreb.<\/p>\n 3. The Croatian Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 4. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n 5. The applicant complained of the inadequate conditions of his detention.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 6. The applicant complained about the inadequate conditions of his detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n Article 3<\/p>\n \u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n A. As regards the applicant\u2019s detention in the Vara\u017edin Prison in the period between 27 January and 17 March 2008<\/strong><\/p>\n 7. The Court notes that the applicant, inter alia, complained of inadequate conditions of detention in the Vara\u017edin Prison in the period between 27\u00a0January 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\u2019s objection that he did not properly exhaust domestic remedies in respect of that period, must be accepted.<\/p>\n 8. It follows that this part of the application is inadmissible and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 1 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B. As regards the remainder of the application<\/strong><\/p>\n 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\u2011law regarding inadequate conditions of detention (see, for instance, Mur\u0161i\u0107 v.\u00a0Croatia [GC], no.\u00a07334\/13, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a096\u2011101, 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 \u201cdegrading\u201d from the point of view of Article\u00a03 and may disclose a violation, both alone or taken together with other shortcomings (see Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0122-41, and Ananyev and Others v. Russia, nos.\u00a042525\/07 and 60800\/08, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0149\u201159, 10\u00a0January 2012).<\/p>\n 10. In the leading cases of Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 69-73 and 91-173, and Ulemek v. Croatia, no. 21613\/16, \u00a7\u00a7 71-120 and 126\u201146, 31 October 2019, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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, \u00a7\u00a7 133-36, 26 November 2009).<\/p>\n 13. The Court reiterates its finding in Mur\u0161i\u0107, 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 Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 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).<\/p>\n 14. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court thus considers that in the instant case the applicant\u2019s conditions of detention were inadequate.<\/p>\n 15. This part of the application is therefore admissible and discloses a breach of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE\u00a041 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 16. Article\u00a041 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIf the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.\u201d<\/p>\n 17. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7 181, and Ulemek, cited above, \u00a7 162), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n 18. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the complaints concerning the inadequate conditions of detention in the periods indicated in the appended table admissible,\u00a0and the remainder of the application inadmissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention;<\/p>\n 3. Holds<\/p>\n (a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;<\/p>\n (b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 29 September 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Viktoriya Maradudina \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 Krzysztof Wojtyczek _____________<\/p>\n APPENDIX<\/strong>
\nCASE OF HRN\u010cI\u0106 v. CROATIA<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 53563\/16)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n29 September 2022<\/p>\n
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek, President,
\nErik Wennerstr\u00f6m,
\nLorraine Schembri Orland, judges,
\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
\nHaving deliberated in private on 8 September 2022,
\nDelivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
\nActing Deputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 President<\/p>\n
\nApplication raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention
\n(inadequate conditions of detention)<\/p>\n