CEKIĆ v. Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is17. passed on March 2026, and on April 7 of the same year announced the verdict in the caseCekic against Serbia, number 19083/20.

The verdict was unanimousbroughtseven-member Council.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

The applicant (hereinafter: the applicant) was, at the time of submitting the application, serving a multi-year prison sentence, and until then he had been in several prisons. On May 14, 2008, the applicant began serving his prison sentence in the Penitentiary in Sremska Mitrovica.

Pothe applicant was subjected to a special measure of accommodation under increased supervision in the period between February 18 and April 8, 2009, as well as in the period between June 25 and September 23, 2009, and was subjected to the disciplinary measure of solitary confinement in the period between March 13 and 28, 2009.

On October 18, 2010, the applicant visited a doctor at the Correctional Institution in Sremska Mitrovica because of a sore throat, runny nose from coughing, and was prescribed antibiotic therapy. On November 5, 2010, after a routine chest x-ray, the applicant was found to have a visible change in the area of ​​the lungs, which raised the suspicion of tuberculosis. On November 9, 2010, he was admitted to the prison hospital, and on December 13, 2010, the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis.

In the period from December 15, 2010 to April 1, 2011, the applicant was treated with antibiotics in the hospital, and then he was discharged from the hospital, after the applicant's father's sputum test was negative for tuberculosis. The applicant's treatment with antibiotics continued until June 14, 2011, and the test results from July 11 and August 3, 2011 were negative.

On April 21, 2011, the applicant submitted to the Basic Court in Sremska Mitrovica a proposal to secure evidence in a non-litigation proceeding through a court inspection and on-site expert testimony of the room where he was serving the disciplinary measure of "strict isolation." On September 3, 2012, the basic court in Sremska Mitrovica rejected his request. Referring to Article 269 of the then valid Civil Procedure Law, the court did not establish a well-founded concern that the evidence in question would become unavailable or that its subsequent production would be significantly more difficult. On December 25, 2012, the High Court in Sremska Mitrovica rejected the applicant's appeal and confirmed the first-instance decision.

Also, the applicant filed a claim with the First Basic Court in Belgrade for non-material damages due to reduced life activity, suffered physical and mental pain, as well as due to the violation of the personal right to life and health, which was rejected by the judgment P. 26071/11 of June 5, 2017. This judgment was confirmed by the judgment of the Appellate Court in Belgrade Mrs. 5240/17 of December 7, 2017.

On February 19, 2018, the applicant submitted a constitutional appeal to the Constitutional Court against the judgments of the First Basic Court and Court of Appeal in Belgrade due to the violation of the right to life, the right to inviolability of physical and psychological integrity, the right to a fair trial, the right to equal protection of rights and the right to health care from Art. 24 and 25, Article 32, paragraph 1, Article 36, paragraph 1, and Article 68, paragraph 1 of the Constitution.

By decision Už-1999/2018 of July 11, 2019, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's constitutional appeal with the explanation: that the allegations of violation of the right to a fair trial cannot be considered as constitutional reasons, but that the Constitutional Court, in essence, is required to assess the regularity and legality of the disputed verdicts as a court of instance; that allegations of violation of the right to equal protection of rights cannot be linked to the content of the provisions of Article 36, paragraph 1 of the Constitution; to state the applicant about the violation of Art. 24 and 25 and Article 68, Paragraph 1 of the Constitutionratione materiaecannot be linked to the content of contested judgments.

COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicant submitted a petition to the Court on April 7, 2020.

Referring to the violation of the prohibition of torture from Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained in the petition that, while serving his prison sentence in the Correctional Institution in Sremska Mitrovica, he was in solitary confinement and under increased surveillance in inadequate conditions, and that his cell was overcrowded during the intensified surveillance. He also complained that he contracted tuberculosis after staying in such conditions, and that he was not provided with adequate medical treatment.

THE DECISION THE COURT

• in connection with inadequate conditions during solitary confinement and placement under increased supervision

The applicant's complaints that during 2009, while he was in solitary confinement and on the measure of accommodation under increased supervision in the Correctional Institution in Sremska Mitrovica, he stayed in very bad conditions — that he was housed in dirty and damp cells of inadequate size and that he did not have enough personal space,The court rejected it as obviously unfounded.

Namely, the Court compared his claims with the reports of several domestic and international bodies whose representatives visited the Correctional Institution in Sremska Mitrovica. Those reports showed that the prisoners in solitary confinement and under increased surveillance were housed in a renovated part of the prison, where the cells were clean, lighted, ventilated and in good condition.

The court also found that the applicant did not prove his claim that he was housed in the worse, fourth wing of the prison. Based on the available evidence, the Court concluded that he was placed in the third wing, in the so-called disciplinary department.

Regarding the applicant's complaints about the lack of personal space and the size of the cell, the Court concluded, based on the case file, that the applicant was housed in a 10 square meter cell, with another prisoner, which is enough personal space for two people. The court did not find sufficient evidence that the premises where the applicant stayed were really wet and dirty.

The Court concluded that there is no sufficient factual basis for the assumption that the material conditions in the prison have reached the threshold required by Article 3 of the Convention.

• in connection with tuberculosis

The applicant's claims that the conditions in the prison during the period of placement under increased supervision and solitary confinement of the Penal Correctional Institution in Sremska Mitrovica contributed to his contracting tuberculosis, and the complaints that the domestic authorities did not investigate the cause-and-effect relationship in this regard (because the domestic courts came to the conclusion that he did not get tuberculosis in prison) and that he was not treated quickly and adequately,The court found it unfounded.

The court stated that the poor material conditions in the prison can increase the risk of transmission of airborne diseases, such as tuberculosis, but found that in the applicant's case, they were adequate.

Namely, the Court found that the applicant was diagnosed with tuberculosis in 2010, about two and a half years after he began serving his sentence in Sremska Mitrovica Penitentiary. He also stated that there was no systematic examination of all new prisoners for tuberculosis in the prison, but controls were only carried out in certain cases.

According to the Court, the delay in diagnosis was indeed problematic, since early detection of infectious diseases in prisons is very important, but he emphasized that the authorities, as soon as they suspected tuberculosis, reacted immediately - the applicant was isolated, transferred to the prison hospital, underwent appropriate diagnostic procedures and was treated, and the treatment was ultimately successful.

The court did not find sufficient evidence that the applicant actually contracted the infection in prison. It was stated that tuberculosis can be "dormant" for a long time before being activated, so it could not be ruled out that he got the infection before arriving in prison. Also, the Court stated that it was not proven that the applicant was in contact with prisoners suffering from active tuberculosis, nor that there was an epidemic in the prison. The Court pointed out that it cannot determine that the deficiencies identified in the prevention plans, together with the material conditions of the applicant's imprisonment and the medical care that was actually provided to him, reached the threshold required to determine that the Respondent State did not fulfill its material obligations under Article 3 of the Convention.

Finally, assessing the applicant's allegations that the domestic civil courts did not determine whether he contracted tuberculosis in prison, the Court noted, first of all, that the applicant in his lawsuit  expressly claimed that he contracted tuberculosis during his stay under increased surveillance and in solitary confinement in 2009.

Although the civil proceedings on the petitioner's claim lasted for six years (which the petitioner did not complain about), the Court assessed that the shortcomings in that proceeding were not such as to prevent the domestic courts from dealing with the essence of the petitioner's allegations, and that they were not sufficient to establish a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in its procedural part.

Following the above, the Court determined that there was no violation of Article 3 of the Convention with regard to the applicant's complaints related to his tuberculosis and the adequacy of his treatment.