Communicated on 19 January 2015
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 61709/12
Grzegorz HIPSZ
against Poland
lodged on 18 September 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Grzegorz Hipsz, is a Polish national, who was born in 1975 and is detained in Siedlce. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Hanclich, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 16 January 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed two murders and attempted murder. On 18 January 2006 he was detained on remand.
On 8 May 2007 the bill of indictment was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court.
On 27 February 2013 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to life imprisonment.
The applicant appealed and the proceedings are pending before the second-instance court.
2. Imposition of the so-called “dangerous detainee” regime
On 20 January 2006 the Warszawa Białołęka Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (“the commission”) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”.
The commission reviewed, and upheld its decision classifying the applicant as a “dangerous detainee” on several occasions.
On 29 August 2012 the commission, finding that the applicant’s behaviour was “stable” and that he did not create a danger to the detention centre decided lift the dangerous detainee regime.
On 28 September 2012 the Commission again classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. The Commission relied on the information received from the police that on 26 September 2012 the applicant had tried to flee from the police convoy when he was transported to a hearing.
The Commission subsequently upheld its qualification and extended the application of the regime to the applicant on 16 October and on 18 December 2012.
The applicant appealed against the Commission’s decision of 18 December 2012.
On 14 February 2013 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the challenged decision finding that it had been issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.
On 28 May 2013 the Commission lifted the regime in relation to the applicant finding that the reasons relied on for his classification ceased to exist.
3. Particular aspects of the regime
The applicant has been kept in a cell which has been constantly monitored via closed-circuit television. He was subjected to a body search every time he left and entered the cell, which in practice meant that he had to strip naked in front of prison officers. No educational or cultural activities were available.
The applicant had to wear handcuffs joined by chains with fetters whenever outside the cell. Also, severe restrictions on his visiting rights as well as on his contacts with other inmates were imposed.
He had a right to one hot shower per week. He submits that in his cell there was only cold water and that there was mould on the walls.
On 31 December 2013 the applicant’s father died. The applicant was transported to the funeral ceremony escorted by ten prison officers wearing balaclavas and he was not allowed to approach the coffin.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of “dangerous detainee” regime 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).
As regards the permission to attend the funeral of a family member, Article 141a § 1 of the 1997 Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences reads as follows:
“In cases of the necessity of seeing a seriously ill member of family, attendance in a funeral of a member of family or in other cases especially important for a convicted person, he or she may be granted permission by a Prison Director to leave prison for a period not exceeding five days, under the escort of a prison officer or other responsible person (osoby godnej zaufania) or on his/her own.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on him amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and was in breach of this provision.
He also complains under Article 8, in particular about the decision to allow him to attend the funeral of his father only under the escort of the police.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant between 20 January 2006 and 29 August 2012 and between 28 September 2012 and 28 May 2013, 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.
2. Was the decision to allow the applicant to attend his father’s funeral at the beginning of 2014 under the police escort in accordance with his right to respect for his family life under Article 8 of the Convention? Reference is made to the fact that at the relevant time the applicant was no longer classified as “dangerous detainee”.
The Government are requested to produce the relevant documents concerning the applicant’s attendance of his father’s funeral, in particular the decision of the relevant detention centre’s authority.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy