Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
Communicated on 7 March 2019
FIRST SECTION
Application no.63821/16
Piotr WIERZBICKI
against Poland
lodged on 20 October 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Piotr Wierzbicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Szczecin.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant has been deprived of liberty since 2005.
Since 5 November 2009 he has been detained in Goleniów Prison.
On 17 December 2009 the Prison Commission of Goleniów Prison (komisjapenitencjarna) classified him as a “dangerous detainee”.
On 11 August 2010 the applicant lodged a civil claim against that prison. He asserted, amongst other allegations, that he was subjected to strip‑searches in a monitored cell and images of this were transmitted from the cell to the guards’ duty room where they were viewed by unauthorised persons, including women. He requested compensation in amount of 46,000 Polish zlotys (PLN – approximately 11,500 euros (EUR)).
On 14 February 2012 the Goleniów District Court (SądRejonowy) partially allowed his claim and awarded him PLN 1,500 (EUR 375) for the breach of his right to education and dismissed the remainder of his claim.
On 21 December 2012 the Szczecin Regional Court (SądOkręgowy) quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the Goleniów District Court.
On 19 May 2015 the Goleniów District Court dismissed the applicant’s claim in full. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:
“A strip search means that [the applicant] undresses and [first] stands facing the prison guards and [then] with his back towards them. The image from the cell during the strip search is not blurred. During the search of [the applicant] his image is recorded while he is naked, which means the intimate parts of his body are visible. The image from the cell is transmitted to screens in the duty room. The employees of the prison, such as a [female] psychologist or a [female] nurse (panipsychologczypanipielęgniarka), have access to the duty room. Moreover, with the director’s permission persons from outside the prison may also enter the duty room.
…
Therefore, it should be acknowledged that … [the applicant] has demonstrated that his personal right (dobro osobiste) in the form of the right to intimacy has been threatened by the possibility of viewing in the duty room of images from his cell during the strip search, when [the applicant] is naked, by persons not at all authorised – firstly, to perform a strip search of the claimant, and secondly, to enter the duty room where screens displaying the images are located.”
The court considered that it had not been necessary to prove that those unauthorised persons had actually seen the recordings of the applicant during strip searches. It was clear that such a risk existed since a female nurse and a female psychologist had been seen in the duty room. At the same time the District Court refused to grant the applicant any compensation, stating that he had not proven that he had suffered any pecuniary or non-pecuniary damage in connection with the violation of his right to intimacy.
The applicant appealed, stating that he felt debased during the strip searches, which were monitored and then transmitted to screens that could be viewed by anyone.
On 4 March 2016 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed his appeal. That court stated that the applicant had not proven from which date he had had knowledge that unauthorised persons had been able to enter the duty room and that he could not feel any discomfort when he had no such knowledge. It also pointed out that he had not proven that the events had constituted a source of negative feelings for him.
On 14 June 2016 the Szczecin Regional Court refused the applicant’s application to grant him a legal aid to lodge a cassation appeal.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. “Dangerous detainee” regime
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” status are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 105-117, 17 April 2012) and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 44-56, 17 April 2012).
2. Monitoring in prisons
The Ordinance of the Minister of Justice of 16 October 2009 on types of devices and technical means for transmitting, replaying and recording image or sound in prisons (RozporządzenieMinistraSprawiedliwości z dnia 16 października 2009 r. w sprawierodzajuurządzeńiśrodkówtechnicznychsłużących do przekazywania, odtwarzaniaiutrwalaniaobrazulubdźwięku z monitoringu w zakładachkarnych) provides, in so far as relevant:
“§ 2. …
3. Access to the devices registering image or sound shall be controlled [and] possible only for authorised persons.”
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention of the monitoring of strip searches he underwent and the transmission of images of these searches, in which he had to stand naked and in humiliating positions, to unspecified persons, including women.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Reference is made to the applicant’s allegation that the video of his strip searches were transmitted to the guards’ duty room where they could have been viewed by other persons, including women.
2. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention (see Szafrański v. Poland, no. 17249/12, 15 December 2015)?
If so, was that interference in accordance with the law within the meaning of Article 8 § 2?
Leave a Reply