FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 10302/06
by Grzegorz DROSIŃSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 May 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 February 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Grzegorz Drosiński, is a Polish national who was born in Częstochowa. At the time of the communication of the application he was serving a sentence in a number of prisons consecutively.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 5 July 2005 the applicant was remanded in custody in connection with criminal proceedings pending against him at the relevant time. It appears that he was concurrently serving a prison sentence imposed by a competent court in a separate case.
From 6 July 2005 to 2 October 2006 the applicant was detained in Częstochowa Remand Centre.
In appears that on 2 October 2006 he was transferred to Zabrze Prison. On an unspecified date in November 2007 he was transferred to Kłodzko Prison. He remained there until 27 March 2008.
The applicant submitted that the conditions in Częstochowa Remand Centre had been inadequate, in particular because of overcrowding. The applicant was held with seven to ten other detainees in a cell designed for five. The cell in question was equipped with three or more bunk beds, other unspecified pieces of furniture and a toilet cubicle. The actual living space in the applicant’s cell was approximately one square metre per person.
The applicant had the right to a one-hour period of outdoor exercise and he spent the remaining time inside his cell.
The applicant asserted that many of his fellow inmates had been hepatitis C positive and that he had been at risk of being infected with that disease. Moreover, in Częstochowa Remand Centre the applicant developed eye problems, migraines, insomnia and depression. The applicant also suffered from ulcers and spinal problems. He submitted that the medical care within the penitentiary system had been inadequate. It had been very difficult to obtain a medical examination by a specialist, and the applicant had had to wait three to five months for an appointment with an ophthalmologist. The sanitary conditions were very poor. Utensils used by the remand centre’s dentist were not sterile. It appears that during his detention the applicant received medical treatment at Strzelce Opolskie Prison, however, as the applicant asserted, he had had difficulty in obtaining a copy of his medical records.
The applicant submitted that he had not received any reply to his complaints of inadequate medical care and conditions in Częstochowa Remand Centre which he had lodged with the penitentiary authorities. Moreover, he expressed the view that any similar complaint to the domestic courts would not have been effective given the large-scale nature of the problem.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of inadequate conditions and medical care in Częstochowa Remand Centre.
THE LAW
By letter dated 27 March 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant at the address of Kłodzko Prison. The applicant was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 8 May 2008.
On 22 April 2008 the Court was informed that on 27 March 2008 the applicant had been released from Kłodzko Prison. Consequently, a copy of the Court’s letter of 27 March 2008 was sent to the applicant’s home address which was indicated in the application form (Mała Street, Częstochowa) and to the applicant’s address which had been indicated by the prison authorities (Armii Krajowej Street, Częstochowa). The applicant did not reply to any of the letters.
By letters dated 13 February 2009, sent by registered post to the above addresses, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 8 May 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. Moreover, the applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant did not intend to pursue the application. The applicant was also instructed to indicate, by 13 March 2009, whether he wished to pursue his application before the Court. The letter, which had been sent to the applicant’s address at Mała Street, was returned to the sender. The letter sent to Armii Krajowej Street was claimed by a third person on 20 February 2009. The applicant has not to date resumed correspondence with the Court.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy