FIRST SECTION
\nCASE OF WALASEK v. POLAND
\n(Application no. 33946\/15)<\/p>\n
JUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n18 October2018<\/p>\n
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n
In the case of Walasek v. Poland,<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ale\u0161Pejchal, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nJovan Ilievski, judges,
\nand Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated in private on 25 September 2018,<\/p>\n
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n
PROCEDURE<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0The case originated in an application (no. 33946\/15) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) by a Polish national, Mr Sebastian Walasek (\u201cthe applicant\u201d), on 6 July 2015.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was represented by Mr P.Ra\u0142, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. The Polish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, who was later replaced by Ms\u00a0A.\u00a0M\u0119\u017cykowska, the Co-Agent, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant alleged that the conditions of his detention had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0\u00a0On 23 November 2016the complaint concerning the conditions of his detention in Kielce Remand Centre from 6 Septemberto 4 October 2012 was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 \u00a7 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/p>\n
I.\u00a0\u00a0THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was born in 1985 and lives in \u0141atanice.<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0The period of the applicant\u2019s detention<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was detained in Kielce Remand Centre from 6\u00a0Septemberto 4 October 2012 (28 days).<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0The conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant submitted that throughout his detention in Kielce Remand Centre, he had been held in overcrowded cells in which the space per person had been below the Polish statutory minimum standard of 3 m\u00b2.<\/p>\n
9.\u00a0\u00a0In their observations, the Government admitted that the applicant had been detained in an overcrowded cell. However, they emphasised that the space in each cell had exceeded 2 m\u00b2 per person and that the hardship caused by staying in an overcrowded cell had been compensated byadding 30\u00a0minutes to his dailywalk as well as additional cultural and educational classes or sports activities.<\/p>\n
10.\u00a0\u00a0In the course of civil proceedings instituted by the applicant, the domestic courts established that for twenty-eight days the applicant had been detained in an overcrowded cell (see also paragraph 13 below).<\/p>\n
11.\u00a0\u00a0Regarding the conditions of detention, the domestic courts established that the overall conditions in cells were adequate. Cells were equipped in compliance with the relevant law; they were properly ventilated and the toilet area had been separated from the rest of the living space in the cells.<\/p>\n
C.\u00a0\u00a0Civil proceedings against the State Treasury<\/p>\n
12.\u00a0\u00a0On 12 August 2013 the applicant brought a civil action against the State Treasury for infringement of his personal rights and for compensation on account of his detention in overcrowded cells in various penitentiary facilities. He claimed 35,000 Polish zlotys (approximately 8,750 euros) in just satisfaction.<\/p>\n
13.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 May 2014 the Warsaw Regional Court (S\u0105dOkr\u0119gowy) dismissed the applicant\u2019s action. It confirmed, however, that temporarily (from 6 September to 4 October 2012) the applicant had been detainedin cells in which the space per person had been below the Polish statutory minimum standard of 3 m\u00b2, but not below 2 m\u00b2.<\/p>\n
14.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 April 2015 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (S\u0105dApelacyjny) dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeal.<\/p>\n
II.\u00a0\u00a0RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE<\/p>\n
15.\u00a0\u00a0A 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\u2019s pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885\/04 and Norbert Sikorski v.\u00a0Poland, no. 17599\/05, 22 October 2009 (see \u00a7\u00a7 75-85 and \u00a7\u00a7\u00a045-88 respectively). More recent developments are described in the Court\u2019s decision in the case of \u0141atak v. Poland, no. 52070\/08, 12 October 2010, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a025-54.<\/p>\n
THE LAW<\/p>\n
I.\u00a0\u00a0ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
16.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention and the overcrowding in Kielce Remand Centre, where he had been held from 6\u00a0September to 4 October 2012 (28 days), had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n
\u201cNo one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.\u201d<\/p>\n
A.\u00a0\u00a0Admissibility<\/p>\n
17.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n
B.\u00a0\u00a0Merits<\/p>\n
18.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant submitted that the overcrowding and conditions of his detention had fallen short of standards compatible with Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
19.\u00a0\u00a0The Government argued that the conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention did not reach the threshold of severity required to consider his treatment to be inhuman or degrading under Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
20.\u00a0\u00a0They confirmed the domestic courts\u2019 findings that for a period of twenty-eight days the applicant had been detained in an overcrowded cell in which the space per person had been below the Polish statutory minimum standard of 3 m\u00b2. They argued, however, that the space allocated to the applicant during his detention in an overcrowded cell exceeded 2 m\u00b2. The Government submitted that the applicant\u2019s placement in an overcrowded cell had been a relatively short and isolated eventinthe entire period of imprisonment. Moreover, the applicant had been provided with sufficient freedom of movement outside his cell. He had been granted an extra halfhour for his daily walk and, from 27September 2012,his cell had been opened during the day as he was servinghis sentence in a semi-open penitentiary institution. The Government emphasised that the general conditions of the applicant\u2019s detention in Kielce Remand Centre had been very good and there had been no other aggravating aspects of his imprisonment.The Government relied on thejudgments Vladimir Belyayevv.\u00a0Russia, no. 9967\/06, 17 October 2013, and Mur\u0161i\u0107 v. Croatia [GC], no.\u00a07334\/13, ECHR 2016.<\/p>\n
21.\u00a0\u00a0A restatement of the general principles concerning the examination of conditions of detention under Article 3 may be found in the Court\u2019s pilot judgments against Poland (see Orchowski (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 119-131)Norbert Sikorski (cited above, \u00a7\u00a7 126-141)) and inMur\u0161i\u0107(cited above, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a0102-141).<\/p>\n
22.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that in a substantial number of cases, when the allocation of space to a detainee in multi-occupancy accommodation fell below 3 m\u00b2, it found the overcrowding so severe as to justify the finding of a violation of Article 3 (see Orchowski, cited above, \u00a7 122 and further authorities).<\/p>\n
23.\u00a0\u00a0The Court has already founda strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 arising when the personal space available to a detainee falls below 3\u00a0m\u00b2 in multi-occupancy accommodation, a presumption which can be rebutted only where the requirements are cumulatively met, namely where short, occasional and minor reductions of personal space are accompanied by sufficient freedom of movement outside the cell and adequate out-of-cell activities and confinement in what is, when viewed generally, an appropriate detention facility (see, Mur\u0161i\u0107,cited above, \u00a7 138).<\/p>\n
24.\u00a0\u00a0The Court observes that in the case relied on by the Government Vladimir Belyayevv. Russia (cited above) the applicant disposed of 2.97\u00a0m\u00b2 of personal space in overcrowded cells during his detention lasting twenty\u2011six days. The Court also observes that in the case of Mur\u0161i\u0107 (cited above), it found a violation of Article 3 in respect of a period of twenty\u2011seven days during which the space available to the applicantin his cell was 2.62 m\u00b2. In the case at hand the Government submitted that the space allocated to the applicant during his detention in an overcrowded cell exceeded 2 m\u00b2. However, they failed to provide the Court with more precise information in that respect.<\/p>\n
25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court notes that the hardship caused to the applicant by staying in an overcrowded cell was partly compensated bylonger daily walks as well as additional cultural and educational classes or sports activities and no other aggravating circumstances arose with regard to the general conditions of his detention. However,having regard to the fact that the Government failed to provide precise information in respect of personal space in accordance with standards set in the Mur\u0161i\u0107judgment, the Court finds that in these circumstances the reduction of the required personal space cannot be considered as \u201cshort, occasional and minor\u201d within the meaning of the Court\u2019s case-law (see Mur\u0161i\u0107, cited above, \u00a7 130).<\/p>\n
26.\u00a0\u00a0It follows that in the present case the strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 cannot be rebutted.<\/p>\n
27.\u00a0\u00a0Taking into account all the above circumstances, the Court finds that in the present case the applicant\u2019s detention in a cell in which personal space was less than 3 m\u00b2 for a period of twenty-eight days amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment.<\/p>\n
28.\u00a0\u00a0Consequently, the Court dismisses the Government\u2019s preliminary objection and holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
II.\u00a0\u00a0APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/p>\n
29.\u00a0\u00a0Article 41 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
30.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant did not submit a claim for just satisfaction. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.<\/p>\n
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0\u00a0Declaresthe application admissible;<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0Holdsthat there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention.<\/p>\n
Done in English, and notified in writing on 18 October 2018, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n
Renata Degener\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ale\u0161Pejchal
\nDeputyRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n