Communicated on 7 July 2014
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 44027/12
Ryszard LIPCZYŃSKI
against Poland
lodged on 28 June 2012
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ryszard Lipczyński, is a Polish national, who was born in 1979 and is currently detained in the Lublin Remand Centre.
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 24 May 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm and leading an organised criminal group.
On 29 May 2009 the applicant was detained in the Lublin Remand Centre.
On 30 December 2010 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant of attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm and leading an organised criminal group and sentenced him to 14 years’ imprisonment [case no. IVK 199/09]. The applicant appealed.
On 11 October 2011 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judgment is final.
On 21 September 2012, in the second set of proceedings against the applicant [case no. IIIK 298/12], the Lublin District Court convicted the applicant of burglary and fraud. It appears that the applicant failed to appeal against this judgment.
2. Imposition of the so-called “dangerous detainee” regime
On 15 July 2010 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (“the commission”) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. It relied on the suspicions against him, i.e. that he was charged with leading an organised criminal group and had committed serious offences with the use of firearms and with extreme cruelty. The commission also referred to the applicant’s position in the prison subculture and to his serious lack of moral character (wysoki stopień demoralizacji). The applicant appealed.
On 1 October 2010 the Lublin Regional Court upheld the decision. The court held that the decision had been lawful and justified.
Every three months the commission reviewed and upheld its decision. The commission referred to the reasons given in its decision of 15 July 2010.
The applicant appealed against the commission’s decisions of 14 October 2010, 4 April 2012 and 3 October 2012. The Lublin Regional Court dismissed the appeals on 21 December 2010, 30 May 2012 and 26 November 2012 respectively.
On 26 June 2013, the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission lifted the “dangerous detainee” regime off the applicant. It relied on positive changes in the applicant’s conduct.
On the same day the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission again imposed on the applicant the “dangerous detainee” regime. The commission referred to the fact that the applicant was convicted of leading an organised criminal group. It further referred to an incident in September 2008, when the applicant allegedly offered a bribe to the prison officers in exchange for a mobile telephone.
On 2 October 2013 the applicant’s lawyer appealed against the commission’s decision of 26 September 2013 to extend the regime. On 18 November 2013 the Lublin Regional Court quashed the commission’s decision. Subsequently, on 22 November 2013 the commission lifted the “dangerous detainee” regime off the applicant.
3. Particular aspects of the regime
The cell, including its sanitary facilities, has been constantly monitored via closed-circuit television.
The applicant has been subjected to a body search every time he has left and has entered the cell, which in practice has meant that he has had to strip naked in front of prison officers and has been required to carry out deep knee-bends.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
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).
COMPLAINTS
1. 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.
2. He also complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the proceedings before the penitentiary commission were unfair and that he did not have an effective remedy to appeal against its decisions.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant from 15 July 2010 to 22 November 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. Having regard to the applicant’s complaint about a lack of fair trial in the proceedings before the penitentiary commission and a lack of an effective remedy against the decisions of the penitentiary commission to impose and extend the dangerous detainee regime:
a) Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the case of Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 107, ECHR 2009.
b) Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention?
3. The Government are invited to submit a copy of the decision imposing the regime on the applicant.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy