FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ZARĘBA v. POLAND
(Application no. 59955/15)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 October 2019
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Zaręba v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Tim Eicke,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 59955/15) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Robert Zaręba (“the applicant”), on 13 November 2015.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. On 18 January 2017 notice of the complaint concerning conditions of detention was given to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court.
THE FACTS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1971 and is currently detained in Garbalin Prison.
5. The facts of the case were not in dispute and may be summarised as follows.Period of the applicant’s detention
6. The applicant was detained in Łódź Remand Centre from January 2007 until at least the date on which he extended his claim lodged with the domestic courts, that is to say until 12 March 2013 (see paragraph 10 below).Conditions of the applicant’s detention
7. The applicant submitted that during his detention in Łódź 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 sq. m.
8. The domestic courts found, without giving any further details, that the applicant had often been detained in overcrowded cells (meaning with less than the statutory minimum of 3 sq. m per person) between January 2007 and May 2009.
9. The courts established, in particular, that the applicant had been detained in cell no. 151 (11.23 sq. m) between 28 August and 20 October 2009 (one month and twenty-two days) shared by four prisoners, and then also on 21 October 2009 in a cell of 12.05 sq. m shared by five prisoners. The applicant submitted that the cells had not been properly ventilated, there had been fungus on the walls and the windows had been leaky.
Civil proceedings against the State Treasury
10. On 7 May 2012 the applicant brought a civil action for infringement of his personal rights on account of the inadequate living conditions in Łódź Remand Centre between January 2007 until the date of lodging his action with the court. On 12 March 2013 he extended his claim for a further period from February 2012 until March 2013. The applicant argued that he had been detained in overcrowded cells below the statutory minimum standard. He claimed 82,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 20,500 euros (EUR)) in compensation.
11. On 13 August 2013 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) awarded the applicant PLN 1,000 (approximately EUR 250) in compensation and dismissed the remainder of his action. The domestic court found that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells between 28 August and 21 October 2009 (one month and twenty-three days). The court considered that, although the defendant’s actions had been unlawful and the conditions difficult, the compensation awarded had been sufficient.
12. On 3 April 2014 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed appeals by the applicant and the defendant, holding that the first‑instance court had correctly established the circumstances of the case, had properly assessed the evidence and had awarded sufficient compensation.
13. On 11 June 2015 the Supreme Court refused to entertain a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
14. 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 inadequate conditions, is 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, 12 October 2010, §§ 25-54).
THE LAW THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST FOR THE APPLICATION TO BE STRUCK OUT UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION
15. On 22 March 2017 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration similar to that in the case of Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, ECHR 2003‑VI). They informed the Court that they were ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 3 of the Convention as regards the overcrowded detention conditions and proposed an amount that they were prepared to pay in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. The Government invited the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
16. The applicant did not agree with the Government’s proposal. He submitted that the amount proposed did not constitute sufficient just satisfaction for the damage he had sustained.
17. Having examined the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration, the Court finds that the Government failed to submit a statement offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (contrast Spółka z o.o. WAZA v. Poland (striking out), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007).
18. This being so, the Court rejects the Government’s request for the application to be struck out under Article 37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the case. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
19. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention and the overcrowding in Łódź Remand Centre, where he had been held between 28 August and 21 October 2009 (one month and twenty-three days), had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
20. The Government, having submitted a unilateral declaration, did not make detailed observations on the merits of the case. They only submitted that the reductions in the required personal space had been accompanied by mitigating factors in particular the fact that the applicant had spent sufficient time outside the cell due to his full-time employment and access to the various out-of-cell activities. However, these submissions were not confirmed by any evidence.Admissibility
21. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.Merits
22. A restatement of the general principles concerning the examination of conditions of detention under Article 3 may be found in the Court’s pilot judgments against Poland (see Orchowski, cited above, §§ 119-31, Norbert Sikorski, cited above, §§ 126-41), and in Muršić v. Croatia ([GC], no. 7334/13, §§ 102-41, ECHR 2016).
23. The Court has already found that a strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 arises when the personal space available to a detainee falls below 3 sq. m in multi-occupancy accommodation, a presumption which can be rebutted only where the following requirements are cumulatively met: where short, occasional and minor reductions of personal space are accompanied by sufficient freedom to move outside the cell, and adequate out-of-cell activities and confinement is in, viewed generally, an appropriate detention facility (see, Muršić, cited above, §§ 137-38).
24. The Court notes that the domestic courts established, in a finding that was uncontested by the applicant or the Government, that the applicant’s detention in Łódź Remand Centre had been marked by overcrowding for a period of fifty-three days. In particular, the personal space per prisoner was reduced to 2.8075 sq. m and on 21 October 2009 to 2.41 sq. m. The Court finds that in these circumstances the reduction of the required personal space cannot be considered as “short, occasional and minor” within the meaning of the Court’s case-law (see Muršić, cited above, § 130). In addition, as noted above, the Government’s submissions that the reductions in the required personal space were accompanied by mitigating factors were not confirmed by any evidence (see paragraph 21 above). It follows that in the present case the strong presumption of a violation of Article 3 cannot be rebutted.
25. Having regard to the above findings, the Court considers that the distress and hardship endured by the applicant exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and went beyond the threshold of severity under Article 3 of the Convention.
26. There has accordingly been a violation of that Article. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
27. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If 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.”Damage
28. The applicant claimed 4,600 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 1,150 euros (EUR)) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage.
29. The Government did not express an opinion on the matter.
30. The Court considers that the applicant suffered damage of a non‑pecuniary nature as a result of his detention in conditions contrary to Article 3 of the Convention (see paragraphs 24-26 above), which would not be sufficiently redressed by the finding of a violation of his rights under the Convention. Making an assessment on an equitable basis, as required by Article 41 of the Convention, the Court awards the applicant EUR 1,150 under this head.Costs and expenses
31. The applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses for the proceedings before the Court or the domestic courts.Default interest
32. The Court considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,Rejects the Government’s request to strike the application out of the list;Declares the application admissible;Holds that there has been a violation of Article 3 of the Convention;Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant within three months EUR 1,150 (one thousand one hundred and fifty euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 October 2019, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Renata DegenerAleš Pejchal
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy