FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 33187/05
by Zbigniew KARMAZYN
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 May 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 September 2005,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 15 February 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Zbigniew Karmazyn, is a Polish national who was born in 1959 and lives in Almere. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Jakub Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. The conditions of the applicant’s detention in Strzelin Prison

The applicant was detained in Strzelin Prison from 3 April to 27 October 2003 and from 21 July 2004 to 13 October 2007.

The applicant submitted that all the cells, to which he was assigned, were overcrowded to the point that he had less than the statutory minimum standard of 3 m² of personal space.

The applicant claims that there was no place for him to sleep, to have his meals or to store food, which had to be kept in plastic bags. There were 6 beds in the cell and two mattresses spread on the floor. There was no private space. The cell was not properly ventilated.

On an unspecified date, while imprisoned, the applicant broke his leg. He had to wear a plaster cast, but he was not transported to a medical ward and had to sleep on the top level of a bunk-bed, without a ladder or any other facility to climb up to or get down from the bed. In order to get to the prison yard for a one-hour walk he had to go down the stairs from the fifth floor.

2. Civil proceedings for compensation against the State Treasury

On 10 January 2006 the applicant lodged a civil action in tort, seeking 100,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation for the suffering which he claimed to have experienced in Strzelin Prison due to overcrowding and poor sanitary conditions.

On 12 December 2007 the Zielona Góra Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s claim.

On 29 April 2008 the Poznań Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.

3. Censorship of the applicant’s correspondence

On 3 August 2005 the applicant received a letter from his lawyer, concerning the civil proceedings for compensation against the State Treasury. It appears that the envelope had been opened because the letter bore the following stamp: “Strzelin Prison, 2005-08-03” (Zakład Karny w Strzelinie, dnia 2005-08-03).

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Conditions of detention

A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning general rules governing conditions of detention in Poland and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that their conditions of detention are inadequate are set out in the Court’s pilot judgments given in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05) on 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§ 45‑88 respectively). More recent developments are described in the decision given by the Court in the case of Łatak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 25-54).

2. Censorship of prisoners’ correspondence

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the censorship of prisoners’ correspondence are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Mocny v. Poland (dec.), no. 47672/09, 30 November 2010 and Kliza v. Poland, no. 8363/04, §§ 29-34, 6 September 2007.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained in substance under Article 3 of the Convention about his conditions of detention in Strzelin Prison.

2. He further complained, invoking Article 8 of the Convention, about the monitoring of his correspondence.

3. Lastly, invoking Articles 10 and 17 of the Convention the applicant alleged that he has been persecuted for having sent his complaints to the Strasbourg Court.

THE LAW

A. Conditions of the applicant’s detention and monitoring of his correspondence