Communicated on 7 September 2020
Published on 28 September 2020
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 47830/18
Piotr GRZYMAŁA against Poland
and 2 other applications
(see list appended)
STATEMENT OF FACTSThe circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.The case of Mr Grzymała (application no. 47830/18)
The applicant is a Polish national. He was born in 1987 and lives in Biskupiec. He is represented before the Court by Mr. Piotr Rał, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
The applicant was imprisoned in Barczewo Prison for 3 months and 9 days, from 4 August to 4 September 2015 and from 1 October until 10 December 2015.
On 28 December 2015 the applicant lodged a civil claim against the State Treasury for the infringement of his personal rights. He sought 20,000 Polish Zloty (PLN) (approx. EUR 5,000) in compensation. He complained of inadequate sanitary conditions in Barczewo Prison and of overcrowding in cells.
On 27 October 2016, the Olsztyn District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) dismissed his claim. The applicant appealed. On 20 July 2017 the Olsztyn Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the Olsztyn Regional Court (it was found that the District Court had not been competent to deal with that matter). On 28 December 2017 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 18 June 2018 the Białystok Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
The courts established that there had been no overcrowding. The toilet annexes in cells for a minimum of 2 persons, in which the applicant had spent 3 months and 9 days, had been separated from the rest of the cells by a sheet of fabric, but the works to separate them by walls had been completed on 31 December 2015. The courts also held that the “not very high standard” of the sanitary facility had been an objective fact and had not been intended to discriminate against the applicant or deliberately infringe his personal rights. Ventilation had been possible only through windows. The sanitary conditions had been satisfactory and the applicant had received the necessary medical care.The case of Mr Sendłak (application no. 1927/19)
The applicant is a Polish national. He was born in 1978 and is currently detained in Czarne prison.
On 27 August 2014 the applicant lodged a civil claim against the State Treasury for infringement of his personal rights. He sought PLN 80,000 (approx. EUR 20,000) in compensation for inadequate conditions of detention in Wrocław Prison where he had been imprisoned for various periods between 4 February 1998 and 17 October 2012, for altogether 2 years and 5 months.
He referred to the fact that there had been no appropriate partition between the sanitary facilities and the rest of the cell. He also indicated the lack of panes in the windows, which contributed to low temperatures in cells and inappropriate ventilation.
On 29 September 2017 the Wrocław Regional Court granted the applicant PLN 4,000 (approx. EUR 1,000) in compensation, finding that the inappropriate separation of toilet annexes had infringed upon the applicant’s right to privacy and had violated his dignity. The court examined only the period after 26 August 2011, holding that the claim as regards the earlier periods had been time-barred. It found that the applicant had been imprisoned in conditions infringing upon his dignity for 100 days between 2001 and 2014; some of the cells had been deprived of a proper partition separating the sanitary part from the rest of the cell. The detainees had had to use blankets and sheets as a substitute for the missing doors. The applicant suffered from haemorrhoids, which caused even more discomfort in using the insufficiently separated toilet. Some of the windows in certain cells lacked panes, which resulted in a low temperature in the cells, except for the summer months. Moreover, some cells lacked a proper heating and ventilation system.
The defendant appealed.
On 26 April 2018 the Wrocław Court of Appeal amended the first‑instance judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The appellate court agreed with all factual findings made by the first-instance court, but held that, although it was true that the partition of sanitary facilities had not secured an adequate level of privacy, there was nothing the prison authorities could have done to remedy that situation as the prison building was old and it would take years and require significant financial means to adapt it accordingly. The Court of Appeal’s judgment was served on the applicant on 24 August 2018.The case of Mr Piela (application no. 28776/19)
The applicant is a Polish national. He was born in 1972 and is currently detained in Poznań Detention Centre.
The applicant was imprisoned in Racibórz Prison from 29 June to 10 October 2012 and from 17 October 2012 to 5 June 2014.
On 22 January 2017 he lodged a claim against the State Treasury for infringement of his personal rights. He sought PLN 20,000 (approx. EUR 5,000) in compensation for inadequate sanitary conditions of detention in Racibórz Prison. He referred to the fact that the sanitary facilities had not provided the prisoners with an adequate level of privacy, which also caused difficulties in maintaining personal hygiene.
The courts examined only the period after 30 January 2014, holding the claim as regards the earlier periods time-barred.
On 24 May 2017 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed his claim, finding that the prison conditions in which the applicant had been held between 30 January and 5 June 2014 had not been inadequate. The applicant appealed. On 16 November 2018 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal, sharing the factual findings made by the first‑instance court and their legal assessment.
As emerges from the domestic courts’ judgments, in the cells in which the applicant had been held for a period slightly exceeding 4 months, toilet annexes had been separated from the rest of the cells by plywood partitions some 1.2 metres high, which allowed prisoners using the toilets to be partially seen by the others. However, according to the courts that situation did not constitute a violation of the applicant’s rights to his privacy as it was justified, among other things, by security reasons. Moreover, the prison building dated from the nineteenth century and certain architectural solutions were not possible or required the approval of the relevant authorities.Relevant domestic law and practice
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, §§ 75-85, 22 October 2009), Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05, §§ 45-88, 22 October 2009) and Łatak v. Poland (no. 52070/08, §§25-54, 12 October 2010).
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention of infringement of their right to privacy and dignity due to inadequate separation of the toilet annexes from the rest of the cells in which they were serving their sentences.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a lack of respect for the applicants’ private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the manner in which cells were fitted with toilet annexes and the resulting lack of privacy in the cells of prisons in which the applicants were serving their sentences.
APPENDIX
1. Piotr Grzymała v. Poland, no. 47830/18;
2. Robert Sendłak v. Poland, no. 1927/19;
3. Olivier Piela v. Poland, no. 28776/19.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy