Last Updated on April 28, 2020 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14900/15
Kamil LEKSZYCKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4 February 2020 as a Committee composed of:
Armen Harutyunyan, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Pauliine Koskelo, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 March 2015,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Kamil Lekszycki, is a Polish national who was born in 1986 and is detained in Garbalin Prison. He was represented before the Court by Mr P. Rał, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Conditions of the applicant’s detention
4. In the period between 25 September 2003 and 31 July 2014 the applicant was detained with breaks in Łódź Remand Centre (Areszt Śledczy), Łódź prison no. 1 (Zakład Karny), Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre, Strzelin Prison, Wrocław Prison no. 2, and Garbalin Prison.
5. According to the applicant, throughout the entire period of his detention, he was held in overcrowded cells in which the space per person had been below the statutory minimum standard of 3 sq. m. Other aspects of the living and sanitary conditions were inadequate. The toilet facilities were inadequately separated from the rest of the cell with a piece of material and plywood. The cells were not sufficiently ventilated or lit, and were therefore humid and mouldy. The blankets and mattresses were dirty and torn. The applicant added that he had had no access to hot water and that no adequate medical treatment had been provided to him. The remaining elements of the living and sanitary conditions and the quality of food met the statutory standards. It appears that the applicant had one hot shower per week and one hour of an outdoor exercise per day.
6. As submitted by the Government,between 25 September 2003 and 31 July 2014 the applicant was detained as follows:
(i) from 25 September 2003 to 24 March 2004 in Łódź Remand Centre;
(ii) from 30 September 2004 to 16 January 2006 in Łódź Remand Centre and Strzelin Prison;
(iii) from 30 July 2008 to 28 August 2008 in Łódź Remand Centre;
(iv) from 3 November 2008 to 3 October 2009 in Łódź Remand Centre, Wrocław prison no. 2 and Łódź prison no. 1;
(v) from 28 December 2010 to 1 February 2011 in Łódź Prison no. 1 and Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre;
(vi) from 2 October 2011 to 24 March 2012 in Łódź Remand Centre and Garbalin Prison;
(vii) from 11 to 25 July 2013 in Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre; and
(viii) from 25 July 2013 and 31 July 2014 in Garbalin Prison.
2. The applicant’s civil action against the State Treasury
7. On 14 August 2014 the applicant, who was represented pro bono by a lawyer from the Lex Nostra Foundation in Warsaw, lodged a civil action with the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) against the State Treasury for infringement of his personal rights due to the inadequate conditions of his detention in Łódź Remand Centre, Łódź Prison no. 1, Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre, Strzelin Prison, Wrocław Prison no. 2 and Garbalin Prison.
8. The applicant sought 60,000 Polish zlotys (PLN – approximately 15,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation, PLN 5,000 (approximately EUR 1,250) in payment to a charity, and for an apology to be published on the website of the Lex Nostra Foundation.
3. Application for exemption from court fees
9. The applicant applied for an exemption from the court fees related to his legal action under section 102 of the Court Fees in Civil Proceedings Act of 28 July 2005 (ustawa o kosztach sądowych w sprawach cywilnych).
10. At the time of lodging the civil action the applicant was detained in Płock Prison. He produced a certificate from the governor of Opole Remand Centre confirming that the prison had not been able to employ him owing to the lack of work positions. The applicant had PLN 942.76 (approximately EUR 235) in his account but could not use it for his own purposes as it was kept in the so-called “iron savings box” (żelazna kasa), a post‑release aid fund to which the applicant would not have access until leaving prison. Furthermore, he did not have any savings, and received financial help from someone outside the prison. The Government submitted that, according to his account statement, the applicant had received in August 2014 the amount of PLN 380 (approximately EUR 95) of which PLN 190.56 (approximately EUR 47) had been at his disposal.
11. The applicant argued that part of money that he had received had been spent in the prison canteen as the prison had not provided for all his basic needs.
12. On 17 October 2014 the court officer (referendarz sądowy) at the Warsaw Regional Court, (case no. III C 1022/14) decided to exempt the applicant from the court fees in the part above PLN 150 (approximately EUR 37) and dismissed the remainder of the application. The court officer found that the applicant had been receiving money from outside of the prison and was able to save some funds in order to pay at least this portion of the court fees.
13. The applicant lodged a complaint against the court officer’s decision (skarga na orzeczenie referendarza sadowego). He sought to be fully exempted from the court fees. He submitted that the court had not taken into account his situation as a whole and had assessed the evidence erroneously.
14. On 12 November 2014 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the decision of 17 October 2014. It underlined that mandatory payment of court fees by the claimant was one of the principles of civil proceedings and exemption from them was an exception that could be granted only in special circumstances. The court pointed out that the normal court fees in the applicant’s case would have amounted to PLN 3,850 (approximately EUR 962) but the applicant was required to pay only PLN 150 (approximately EUR 37). The domestic court stressed that it was supposed to look not only into the material situation of the applicant at the time but also into his diligence in securing funds for a future civil action prior to lodging it. The court found that the applicant had been receiving regular payments from outside prison in the amount of PLN 180-200 (approximately 45-50 EUR) and could have secured the funds in advance in order to use at least part of them to pay court fees in the amount of PLN 150 (approximately 37 EUR).
15. As the applicant did not pay the court fees, on 8 December 2014 the Warsaw Regional Court decided to return his statement of claim. The applicant did not appeal against that decision and it became final.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
16. A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning general rules governing the conditions of detention in Poland, and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that the conditions of their detention were inadequate is set out in the Court’s pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05, 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§ 45-88 respectively). More recent developments are described in the Court’s decision in the case of Łatak v. Poland (no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, §§ 25-54).
17. The rules governing court fees in civil cases and the right to access to a court were set out in the Court’s judgment Buczek v. Poland (no. 31667/12, §§ 13-16, 14 June 2016).
COMPLAINTS
18. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of overcrowding and inadequate conditions of his detention.
19. He also complained, under Article 6 § 1, that by not having been fully exempted from the court fee he had been deprived of his right of access to a court.
20. The applicant further relied on Article 8 of the Convention, alleging that he had been subjected to a number of unjustified searches of his person, and on Article 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, arguing that the fact that most of civil actions lodged by prisoners against the State Treasury were rejected or dismissed was discriminatory.
THE LAW
A. Complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
21. The applicant complained that he had been deprived of access to a court for the determination of his civil rights in breach of his right to a fair hearing as provided in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair … hearing … by [a] … tribunal …”
1. The parties’ submissions
22. The Government submitted that the present application should be found inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention due to its manifestly ill-founded character.
23. They underlined that the right of access to a court was not absolute and the State had a right to introduce certain formal requirements on civil actions. The requirement to pay court fees could not be regarded per se as incompatible with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. Under Polish law judicial proceedings were generally subject to court fees. The applicant in the case at hand had claimed the amount of PLN 65,000 (approximately EUR 16,250) as compensation for the conditions of his detention. The standard court fees calculated according to the Court Fees in Civil Proceedings Act amounted to PLN 3,850 (approximately EUR 962). After careful examination of his financial situation, the applicant was exempted from paying the court fees in the amount exceeding PLN 150 (approximately EUR 36). The Government submitted that the sum of PLN 150 could not have been regarded as disproportionate or excessive even in the applicant’s situation. The applicant’s bank statement dated 3 September 2014 showed that he had received money from outside of the prison in August 2014 from which the sum of PLN 190.56 (approximately EUR 47) had been at his disposal. The applicant had intended to file a civil action and he could have saved at least part of this amount for payment of the court fees.
24. The Government argued that in the course of the applicant’s detention all of his basic needs had been provided for. The applicant had failed to demonstrate what kind of financial obligations had prevented him from covering the court fees in the amount of PLN 150 and which of his basic needs had been allegedly neglected by the prison authorities.
25. The applicant, who was represented before the Court by a lawyer, submitted his observations in Polish. In the letters of 4 March 2017 and 12 May 2017 the applicant’s representative had been informed that as he had not sought leave for the continued use of the official language of a Contracting Party in accordance with Rule 34 § 3 (a) of the Rules of Court, he should submit a translation of his observations in one of the Court’s official languages within a given time-limit. He had failed to reply to any of those letters. Accordingly, the President of the Section had decided, pursuant to Rule 38 § 1 of the Rules of Court, that the applicant’s observations would not be included in the case file for the consideration of the Court.
2. The Court’s assessment
26. The Court reiterates that the general principles regarding the right of access to a court, as guaranteed by Article 6 § 1, were set out in a number of its previous judgments (see, for instance, Kreuz v. Poland, no. 28249/95, § 52, ECHR 2001‑VI, and Zubac v. Croatia [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5 April 2018).
27. The Court has already underlined, in particular, that various limitations, including financial, on the individual’s access to a “court” or “tribunal” would not be compatible with Article 6 § 1 unless they pursue a legitimate aim and there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the legitimate aim sought to be achieved (see Kreuz, cited above, § 55). The amount of the fees assessed in the light of the particular circumstances of a given case, including the applicant’s ability to pay them, and the phase of the proceedings at which that restriction were imposed are factors which are material in determining whether or not a person enjoyed his right of access and had “a … hearing by [a] tribunal” (see Podbielski and PPU Polpure v. Poland, no. 39199/98, § 64, 26 July 2005, and Buczek, cited above, § 26).
28. As to the present case, the Court notes that the applicant was a prisoner and was not in employment. Those factors were taken into account by the national authorities while deciding on the exemption from court fees (see paragraphs 12‑14). At the same time the applicant received financial aid from outside of the prison and was in possession of sufficient financial resources to make small savings (see paragraph 14 above).
29. The Court observes that the national court in its decision thoroughly analysed the situation of the applicant. It exempted him from paying most of the fee, leaving him with the obligation to cover the relatively small amount of PLN 150, which constituted less than 4% of the normal statutory fee calculated according to the relevant legislation. The domestic court concluded that the applicant’s financial situation would have allowed him to secure some funds to pay this amount (see paragraph 14 above). Its decision was well-reasoned and had regard to the applicant’s specific circumstances. The Court notes in particular that in the case at hand the applicant did not prove that his basic needs had not been provided for by the prison authorities and he had had to use his private money to do so.
30. The foregoing considerations are sufficient to enable the Court to conclude that, despite the fact that a restriction in the form of partial court fees was imposed at the initial stage of the proceedings, it was not disproportionate.
31. It follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
B. Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention
32. The applicant complained of being held in inadequate conditions of detention. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
33. The Government submitted that the applicant’s complaints under Article 3 should be declared inadmissible pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention because the applicant had failed to submit his case to the Court within the six-month time-limit when it came to the period of his detention before 11 July 2013. Furthermore the Government argued that when it came to the remainder of the applicant’s detention – between 11 July 2013 and 31 July 2014 – the application should be declared inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies or as being manifestly ill-founded.
34. In its previous cases concerning overcrowding and other inadequate conditions of detention in Poland, the Court has held that a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code (kodeks cywilny) could be considered an “effective remedy” for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention as of 17 March 2010, as only on that date did the practice of domestic courts in respect of the interpretation and application of those provisions become sufficiently established. Having regard to the three-year limitation period for lodging such an action, the time necessary to prepare and bring it and the date on which the decision in the Łatak case was adopted, the Court held that essentially the applicant concerned should have brought a civil action for infringement of personal rights and compensation in any cases in which the alleged violation of the Convention had ended in June 2008 or later (see Łatak, cited above, § 85).
35. The Court notes that, taking into account its conclusions on the availability of the effective domestic remedy concerning conditions of detention in Poland, it will look at the applicant’s detention in two separate periods: (1) from 25 September 2003 to 16 January 2006 and (2) from 30 July 2008 to 31 July 2014.
1. The applicant’s detention between 25 September 2003 and 16 January 2006
36. The Court notes that the applicant’s second period of detention ended on 16 January 2006 and that his third period of detention started only on 30 July 2008 (see paragraph 6 above). Given the three-year limitation period for lodging an action under Articles 24 and 448 of the Civil Code, the applicant’s claim regarding the inadequate conditions of his detention prior to 16 January 2006 had already become time‑barred by 17 March 2010. Therefore, at the relevant time the applicant had no “effective remedy” for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention (see Musiałek and Baczyński v. Poland, no. 32798/02, § 113, 26 July 2011, and Okrzesik v. Poland (dec.), no. 20469/11, 1 October 2013) and should have lodged his complaint under Article 3 directly with the Court.
37. The Court reiterates that where it is clear from the outset that the applicant has no effective remedy, the six-month period to lodge an application runs from the date on which the act complained of took place or from the date on which the applicant was directly affected by or became aware of such an act or had knowledge of its adverse effects (see Varnava and Others v. Turkey [GC], nos. 16064/90 and 8 others, § 157, ECHR 2009). Consequently, in cases concerning conditions of detention, the time-limit for lodging an application with the Court runs from the date on which the alleged violation was either remedied by placing the applicant in Convention-compliant conditions or ended because the applicant was released (compare Łatak, cited above, § 85).
38. It follows that this part of the complaint under Article 3 has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
2. The applicant’s detention between 30 July 2008 and 31 July 2014
39. As the Court noted above from 17 March 2010 the applicant had at his disposal an effective remedy under Polish law, namely a civil action under Article 24 taken in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code (see paragraph 34 above).
40. Having regard to the three-year limitation period for lodging such an action, the Court considers that the applicant had at his disposal an action for compensation of alleged infringement of his personal rights during his detention from 30 July 2008 to 31 July 2014.
41. The applicant decided to initiate a civil action for this period of detention in August 2014. However, as noted above, his statement of claim was eventually returned to him for non-compliance with the relevant procedural rules, that is to say an obligation to pay the court fees (see paragraph 15 above). Consequently, the Court concludes that the applicant failed to exhaust the domestic remedies in respect of this part of the application.
42. As the applicant did not fulfil the formal criteria of lodging an action for compensation as regards the complaint concerning the conditions of his detention, this part of the complaint must be rejected on the grounds that the effective remedy available under domestic law was not exhausted as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention.
C. The remaining complaints
43. The applicant also alleged, under Article 8 of the Convention, that he had been subjected to a number of unjustified searches of his person. The Court notes that he did not present any details or domestic decisions relating to this issue. Therefore, he did not sufficiently substantiate his claims in this connection. The applicant further complained, under Article 14, that most of actions lodged by prisoners against the State Treasury were dismissed. He did not, however, present any arguments as to how that statement relates to his situation, regarding in particular the fact that, as established above (see paragraphs 28-30 above) the decision concerning the partial exemption from the court fees in the applicant’s case was well-reasoned and took into consideration his individual circumstances. Accordingly, the Court concludes that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded.
44. In addition to that, the applicant made complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12. As Poland is not a Contracting Party to Protocol No. 12, the remainder of the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 3 a) and Article 35 §4 of the Convention as incompatible ratione personae.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 27 February 2020.
Renata Degener Armen Harutyunyan
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply