Communicated on 15 September 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no 30848/15
Marek Krzysztof BRONOWICKI
against Poland
lodged on 18 June 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Marek Krzysztof Bronowicki, is a Polish national who was born in 1986 and lives in Pogalewo Małe.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was detained in Wrocław Remand Centre from 26 January 2009 to 14 September 2011.
On 22 September 2011 he 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 Wrocław Remand Centre. He claimed 50,000 Polish zlotys (PLN – 12,500 euros (EUR)) in compensation.
The applicant submitted that during his detention he had been assigned to overcrowded cells. He further submitted that each cell’s toilet annex had been separated from the cell by a fibreboard partition only 150 cm high, which had made it impossible for him to have even a minimum of privacy.
By a decision of 2 July 2014 the Wrocław Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. The domestic court stated that for 10 months the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells but that these conditions had been in accordance with the law, as in force at the time in question (Article 248 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences).
The court established, referring to the evidence submitted by the defendant State Treasury represented by Governor of the Wrocław Remand Centre, that the prisoners in Wrocław Remand Centre had had one hour of outdoor exercise per day, had had access to sporting activities, had been provided with personal hygiene items and had had one hot shower per week. This, taken as a whole, had alleviated the discomfort normally caused by and inherent to serving prison sentences.
The applicant appealed, arguing that the judgment had been based on insufficient factual findings. He reiterated his argument that the fact that he had spent ten months in overcrowded cells, each of which had not been properly separated from the adjoining toilet amounted to a breach of his personal rights.
By a judgment of 18 December 2014 the Wrocław Court of Appeal amended the judgment of the court of first instance by granting the applicant compensation of PLN 1,000 (EUR 250).
The Court of Appeal added to and completed the factual findings of the first-instance court and found that the toilet annex to each of the applicant’s cells had indeed been separated from the cell by fibreboard partitions only 150 cm high and a curtain instead of a door.
The court confirmed that the applicant had been assigned to the overcrowded cells for 10 months and agreed with the conclusion of the court of first instance that this, in and of itself, was not sufficient reason for the applicant to be granted compensation. However, the overcrowding, its length, and the poor sanitary conditions could together amount to a breach of personal rights.
The court was of the view that in those cells he had had to use the toilet in the presence of other inmates and had thus been deprived of a basic level of privacy in his everyday life. The poor sanitary conditions, and in particular the lack of privacy, had amounted to a breach of the applicant’s personal rights. The domestic court referred to Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention, as well to Article 10 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
B. Relevant domestic law
A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice governing conditions of detention in Poland and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that the conditions of their detention were inadequate are 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), adopted on 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) adopted on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 25-54).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains, referring to Article 3 of the Convention, that he was a victim of degrading treatment in Wrocław Remand Centre, on account of the overcrowding and poor sanitary conditions in the cells in which he served his sentence. He also complains under Article 8 of the Convention that he was deprived of his right to privacy because the toilet annexes were not properly separated from the cells. The only separation consisted of a fibreboard partition 150 cm high without a door, which did not provide for even a minimum of privacy and breached his dignity.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention in Wrocław Remand Centre from 26 January 2009 to 14 September 2011?
2. Has there been lack of respect for the applicant’s private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the manner in which cells where he was serving his sentence from 26 January 2009 to 14 September 2011 were at the material time fitted with toilet annexes and to the resulting lack of privacy (see, mutatis mutandis, Szafrański v. Poland, no. 17249/12, §§ 37-41, 15 December 2015).
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy