Communicated on 7 July 2014
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 36140/11
Michał KORGUL
against Poland
lodged on 25 May 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Michał Korgul, is a Polish national, who was born in 1987 and is currently detained in Zamość Prison.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The criminal proceedings against the applicant
Since an unspecified date the applicant was detained on remand.
In July 2009 he was indicted before the Lublic District Court. He was charged with having committed armed robberies.
On an unspecified date the Lublin District Court gave a judgment in the applicant’s case (IX K 79/11). It appears that in 2011 the Lublin Regional Court examined the applicant’s appeal (Vka 370/11).
2. Imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime
On 24 February 2011 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. It relied on the fact that the applicant had assaulted a prison guard (Article 88a §2 (2 b) of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences).
The applicant appealed against the decision. On 27 April 2011 the Lublin Regional Court upheld the decision. The court held that the applicant had posed a serious danger to the security of the Lublin Remand Centre.
On 18 August 2011 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission reviewed and upheld its decision classifying the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”.
The applicant appealed against the decision. On 26 October 2011 the Lublin Regional Court upheld the decision. The court referred to the reasons given in the decision of 27 April 2011. The court held that the decision had been lawful.
On 3 January 2012 the Opole Lubelskie Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission extended the applicant’s regime. The applicant appealed.
On 14 February 2012 the Lublin Regional Court upheld the decision. The court referred to the reasons given in the decision of 27 April 2011.
The applicant appealed also against the decision of the Rzeszów Prison Penitentiary Commission of 3 April 2012 on the extension of the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on him. On 4 June 2012 the Rzeszów Regional Court upheld the decision in question. It appears that the regime was lifted on 27 March 2013.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the monitoring of “dangerous detainees” and personal check are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 110-117, 17 April 2012), and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 49-56, 17 April 2012).
In particular Article 88a § 2 (2) of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences allows imposing the regime on a convicted person who during his detention posed a danger to the security of a remand centre by having:
“b) committed an assault on public officer or other person employed in a prison or a remand centre.”
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under all Articles of the Convention about lengthy imposition on him of the “dangerous detainee” regime. He complains about routine personal checks, censorship of correspondence, cameras in his cell, control of his telephone conversations, prohibition from taking up an employment or attending courses.
The applicant also complains that he has no access over 3,000 Polish zlotys which his family gave him but it was placed in the so-called “iron savings box” (żelazna kasa).
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
As regards Article 3 – “dangerous detainee” regime
1. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant from 24 February 2011 to 27 March 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.
In this connection the Government are invited to submit a copy of the relevant decision imposing the regime on the applicant and further decisions extending the application of the regime on the applicant. In addition the Government are invited to submit copies of the judgments given against the applicant in the criminal proceedings against him.
As regards Article 1 of the Protocol No. 1 to the Convention – “iron savings box.”
2. Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see communication in cases Olszynski v Poland, 35410/09 and Siemaszko v. Poland, 60975/08)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy