Communicated on 22 June 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 20811/15
Michał DUDEK
against Poland
lodged on 15 April 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Michał Dudek, is a Polish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Tarnów.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date the applicant was convicted of having committed several murders and other offences while acting as a member of an organised criminal gang.
In February 2002 the Tarnów Prison Penitentiary Commission (“the commission”) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee” on the basis of the violent nature of the offences for which he had been convicted.
Subsequently every three months the commission reviewed and confirmed its decision classifying the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”.
The applicant lodged complaints against many decisions of the commission with the Tarnów Regional Court; however, his appeals were dismissed. In its decisions the Tarnów Regional Court acknowledged that the applicant’s behaviour had been good, he had never been punished for disciplinary offences, and he had received rewards for good behaviour. However, the main ground for imposing and extending the regime had been the serious nature of the offences committed by the applicant and his lack of moral character, and those arguments had remained valid.
On 11 August 2015 the Tarnów Regional Court ordered that an expert opinion be prepared on whether, after all his years of imprisonment, the applicant still posed a threat to the security of the remand centre.
The applicant remains classified as a “dangerous detainee”.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of “dangerous detainee” status are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 105-117, 17 April 2012) and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 44-56, 17 April 2012).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about imposition on him of a lengthy “dangerous detainee” regime.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant since 2002, has he been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention? The parties are requested to refer in their observations to the leading judgment of Piechowicz v. Poland, no. 20071/07, 17 April 2012.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy