FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 5904/06
by Krzysztof JĘKOT
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 April 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 December 2005,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Jękot, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Legnica. He was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Król, a lawyer practising in Legnica. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. Conditions of the applicant’s detention
(a) Period of the applicant’s detention
The applicant was detained in Wołów Prison from 20 June 2002 until 3 March 2008.
(b) Description of the applicant’s detention conditions
The applicant was initially committed to cell no. 394 in ward III C of Wołów Prison. The cell in question measured 15 sq metres and was shared by eight prisoners including the applicant even though its capacity was designed for four persons.
The cell was equipped with eight beds, stools, a small and a large table, as well as a toilet annex in the corner. This made it so crowded with people and objects that it was not possible to move around. As a result, the inmates spent entire days either lying down or standing straight up. There was very little natural light in the cell due to the small size of the window, and the artificial lighting was inadequate due to the low voltage of the light bulb. Due to the particular arrangement of the furniture, it was impossible to open the only window, with the result that the cell could not be ventilated. The lack of ventilation was unbearable especially in the summer or when the prisoners were obliged to clean the floor with a particular odorous chemical product. The cell was infested with bedbugs and cockroaches. The prison authorities continuously ignored this situation and on one occasion the applicant had not been allowed to obtain any bug repellent from his family. There were frequent water-cuts in prison all-year round, which was aggravated in the summertime by the fact that no drinking water was supplied to the cell.
The applicant’s cell was designated as a non-smoking cell but, in fact, both smoking and non-smoking prisoners were detained there. The applicant was a non-smoker.
Such conditions of imprisonment led to increased tension among the inmates who often got into fights. Furthermore, the prison health-care was neither adequate nor effective. The prisoners suffered from various diseases. Two of the applicant’s cellmates died in 2004 and 2005 inside or near the cell. The applicant himself suffered from chronic nausea and headaches, and his eyesight was rapidly deteriorating. In addition, the prison authorities did not provide the applicant with the opportunity to follow the kinesitherapy prescribed by physicians after his knee surgery or simply, to exercise his injured leg.
2. The applicant’s actions concerning the conditions of his detention
The applicant has repeatedly complained to the domestic authorities about overcrowding in Wołów Prison. Moreover, in May 2004 he participated in a mass hunger strike which was settled after three days.
In a letter of 24 May 2004 the Prison Director explained that his decision to place prisoners, for a determined period of time, in cells with less than 3 square metres per person, had been taken in the light of a 140 % population rate in the Wołów Prison and in compliance with the relevant domestic law. Further, the Director noted that every three months the responsible penitentiary judge was informed about the situation in the prison. A similar explanation was provided by the Prison Director on 10 August 2005, when the population rate dropped to 132 %.
Furthermore, the applicant’s complaints about inadequate conditions of imprisonment were dismissed as manifestly ill-founded by the Wroclaw Regional Inspection of Prison Service (Okręgowy Inspektorat Służby Więziennej) on 30 August 2005, as well as by the Ombudsman on 9 September 2005.
The specific complaint about sharing the prison cell with the smokers was dismissed by the Wroclaw Regional Inspection of Prison Service on 20 October 2005. The latter body stated that the applicant’s cell was a non‑smoking one, thus any incident of tobacco smoking by a cellmate would have been in breach of the internal prison regulations. The applicant was further instructed to inform the prison authorities each time such an incident occurred, so that proper steps could be taken against a disobedient smoking prisoner.
It is unclear whether the applicant has filed a civil action with regard to the conditions of his imprisonment, in particular on account of his exposure to cigarette smoke. He submitted that he had recently prepared a civil claim to be sent to the Wroclaw Regional Court but he suspected that it had been withheld by the prison authorities.
3. Compassionate leave
On 14 December 2004 the applicant received a telegram from his relatives, informing him of his father’s funeral which was scheduled for 17 December 2004.
On the same date the applicant asked the Prison Director to be allowed to attend his father’s funeral without a prison guards’ escort.
It appears that on 14 December 2004 the applicant was granted compassionate leave to attend the funeral under a police escort. The applicant was informed of that decision on the very same day. He refused to attend the funeral under an escort.
4. Alleged seizure of the applicant’s book
The applicant also submitted that on an unspecified date unidentified prison guards had stolen or destroyed some of the drafts of the book which he was writing in prison. It appears that the applicant failed to make a formal complaint to the prison authorities in that respect.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
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 that the conditions of their detention were inadequate are set out in the Court’s pilot judgments given in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05) on 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§ 45-88 respectively). More recent developments are described in the Court’s decision in the cases of Łatak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) adopted on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 25-54) and Łomiński v. Poland (no. 33502/09) adopted on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 17-49).
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention in Wołów Prison were in breach of Article 3 of the Convention.
In addition, he complained that he had been refused compassionate leave to attend his father’s funeral in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
Lastly, invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained about an interference with his private property in that the prison guards had destroyed or taken away parts of his draft book.
THE LAW
A. Complaint under Article 3 of the Convention
The applicant complained of a breach of Article 3 on account of overcrowding and inadequate living and sanitary conditions in Wołów Prison from 20 June 2002 until 3 March 2008.
On 10 January 2011 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay, to Mr Krzysztof Jękot with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above‑mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN 16,000 (sixteen thousand Polish zlotys), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. The payment is intended to provide the applicant with redress for the systemic violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention, in particular overcrowding, as identified by the Court in the pilot judgment given in the case of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) on 22 October 2009 (see paragraphs 135 and 147 et seq.).
This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
On 18 February 2011 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Krzysztof Jękot, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me, with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above‑mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights, PLN 16,000 (sixteen thousand Polish zlotys), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant. I further note that the payment constitutes redress for the systemic violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the conditions of his detention, in particular overcrowding, as identified by the Court in the pilot judgment given in the case of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) on 22 October 2009 (see paragraphs 135 and 147 et seq.)
This sum will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. 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.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike this part of the case out of the list.
B. Complaint under Article 8 of the Convention
The applicant also complained that on 14 December 2004 he had been refused compassionate leave to attend his father’s funeral in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
The applicant lodged his application with the Court on 19 December 2005. It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
C. Complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
Lastly, invoking Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained about an interference with his private property in that the prison guards had destroyed or taken away parts of his draft book.
The applicant failed to provide any details or documents to substantiate his complaint. It is unknown when the alleged events took place and it appears that the applicant failed to make a formal complaint to the prison authorities in that respect.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the friendly settlement reached in respect of the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas BratzaRegistrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy