Communicated on 7 March 2019<\/p>\n
FIRST SECTION<\/p>\n
Application no.63821\/16
\nPiotr WIERZBICKI
\nagainst Poland
\nlodged on 20 October 2016<\/p>\n
STATEMENT OF FACTS<\/p>\n
The applicant, Mr Piotr Wierzbicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Szczecin.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0The circumstances of the case<\/strong><\/p>\n The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n The applicant has been deprived of liberty since 2005.<\/p>\n Since 5 November 2009 he has been detained in Goleni\u00f3w Prison.<\/p>\n On 17 December 2009 the Prison Commission of Goleni\u00f3w Prison (komisjapenitencjarna) classified him as a \u201cdangerous detainee\u201d.<\/p>\n On 11 August 2010 the applicant lodged a civil claim against that prison. He asserted, amongst other allegations, that he was subjected to strip\u2011searches in a monitored cell and images of this were transmitted from the cell to the guards\u2019 duty room where they were viewed by unauthorised persons, including women. He requested compensation in amount of 46,000\u00a0Polish zlotys (PLN \u2013 approximately 11,500 euros (EUR)).<\/p>\n On 14 February 2012 the Goleni\u00f3w District Court (S\u0105dRejonowy) partially allowed his claim and awarded him PLN\u00a01,500 (EUR\u00a0375) for the breach of his right to education and dismissed the remainder of his claim.<\/p>\n On 21 December 2012 the Szczecin Regional Court (S\u0105dOkr\u0119gowy) quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the Goleni\u00f3w District Court.<\/p>\n On 19 May 2015 the Goleni\u00f3w District Court dismissed the applicant\u2019s claim in full. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201cA 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 (panipsychologczypanipiel\u0119gniarka), have access to the duty room. Moreover, with the director\u2019s permission persons from outside the prison may also enter the duty room.<\/p>\n …<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 firstly, to perform a strip search of the claimant, and secondly, to enter the duty room where screens displaying the images are located.\u201d<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n On 14 June 2016 the Szczecin Regional Court refused the applicant\u2019s application to grant him a legal aid to lodge a cassation appeal.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Relevant domestic law and practice<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0\u201cDangerous detainee\u201d regime<\/p>\n The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of the \u201cdangerous detainee\u201d status are set out in the Court\u2019s judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 105-117, 17 April 2012) and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621\/08, \u00a7\u00a7 44-56, 17 April 2012).<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Monitoring in prisons<\/p>\n 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 (Rozporz\u0105dzenieMinistraSprawiedliwo\u015bci z dnia 16\u00a0pa\u017adziernika 2009 r. w sprawierodzajuurz\u0105dze\u0144i\u015brodk\u00f3wtechnicznychs\u0142u\u017c\u0105cych do przekazywania, odtwarzaniaiutrwalaniaobrazulubd\u017awi\u0119ku z\u00a0monitoringu w zak\u0142adachkarnych) provides, in so far as relevant:<\/p>\n \u201c\u00a7\u00a0\u00a02. …<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0Access to the devices registering image or sound shall be controlled [and] possible only for authorised persons.\u201d<\/p>\n COMPLAINT<\/strong><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention? Reference is made to the applicant\u2019s allegation that the video of his strip searches were transmitted to the guards\u2019 duty room where they could have been viewed by other persons, including women.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0Has there been an interference with the applicant\u2019s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article\u00a08 \u00a7\u00a01 of the Convention (see Szafra\u0144ski v. Poland, no. 17249\/12, 15 December 2015)?<\/p>\n If so, was that interference in accordance with the law within the meaning of Article\u00a08 \u00a7\u00a02?<\/p>\n