Communicated on 7 July 2014
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 36615/09
Sebastian SOBALA
against Poland
lodged on 19 June 2009
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sebastian Sobala, is a Polish national, who was born in 1974 and is serving a prison sentence in Rawicz.
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
(a) First set of criminal proceedings [case no. IIIK 486/03]
On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder and related offences. Subsequently, he was detained on remand and charged with murder.
On 27 May 2004 the Poznan Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) convicted the applicant of murder and related offences and sentenced him to life imprisonment. It appears that the applicant failed to appeal against this judgment.
(b) Second set of criminal proceedings [case no. XXIIIK 1438/04]
On 20 February 2004 the applicant attempted to escape from the building of the Poznan Regional Court. He ran for about 10 meters and was caught in an immediate pursuit.
Subsequently he was charged with unlawful release (bezprawne uwolnienie się) and indicted before the Poznan District Court.
On 14 January 2005 the Poznan District Court gave judgment and discontinued the proceedings against the applicant on the ground that imposing a penalty on him would have been obviously pointless (oczywiście niecelowe) in view of a penalty imposed for another offence.
2. Imposition of the so – called “dangerous detainee” regime
The applicant was detained in the Poznan Remand Centre from 31 December 2002 until 6 March 2003 and from 22 March 2004 until at least 21 April 2010. Between 6 March and 22 March 2004 he was detained in the Czarne Prison and subsequently in the Wronki Prison.
On 27 February 2004, after the applicant’s attempted escape, the authorities of Wronki Prison requested to impose on him the “dangerous detainee” regime. They stressed that it was necessary to place the applicant in a remand center’s ward or in a cell with conditions ensuring protection of society and the security of the remand center. They referred to the applicant’s attempted escape and his serious lack of moral character (poziom zdemoralizowania).
On an unknown later date in March 2004 the Poznan Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (Komisja Penitencjarna) (“the commission”) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. Every three months the commission repeatedly reviewed and upheld its decision classifying the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. The prison authorities in their requests for review of the applicant’s status referred to his attempted escape of 20 February 2004, his serious lack of moral character, the nature of offence of which he had been convicted and the fact that he objected to the prison’s rehabilitation program.
All of the applicant’s appeals against the decisions extending the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on him were unsuccessful. They were dismissed by the Poznan Regional Court, in particular on 1 September 2006, 13 October 2006, 5 January 2007, 6 April 2007, 6 July 2007, 14 September 2007, 12 December 2007, 21 March 2008, 18 July 2008, 19 September 2008, 4 February 2009, 6 March 2009 and 22 May 2009. The court repeated that the extension of the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on the applicant had been lawful. The commission considered the nature of the offence of which the applicant was convicted, lack of criticism and his attempted escape.
On 17 June 2010 the Poznań Remand Centre Commission lifted the “dangerous detainee” regime off the applicant. It relied on positive changes in the applicant’s conduct.
3. Particular aspects of the regime.
Between 31 December 2002 and 6 March 2003 and between 22 March 2004 and at least 21 April 2010, the applicant was detained in the Poznań Remand Centre.
Between 6 March 2003 and 22 March 2004 the applicant was detained in Czarne Prison and subsequently in Wronki Prison. Until 2008 the cells were lit around-the-clock. After 10 pm the lights were dimmed.
The applicant, whenever he was outside his cell, including his appearances at court hearings wore the so-called “joined shackles” on his hands and feet. Those shackles consisted of handcuffs and fetters joined together with chains. The applicant 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.
The applicant was also kept in a cell which was constantly monitored via closed-circuit television
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. General rules
The relevant provisions relating to the imposition of the dangerous detainee status as regards detained on remand is set out in the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (“the Code”). Articles 212a and 212b of the Code regulate the main features of the status of such detainees which read, in so far as relevant, as follows:
Article 212 a
“1. The penitentiary commission shall classify a detainee as posing a serious danger to society or to the security of a remand centre. It shall review its decisions on that matter at least once every three months. The authority at whose disposal a detainee remains and a penitentiary judge shall be informed of decisions taken.
2. A detainee, referred to in paragraph 1, shall be placed in a designated remand centre’s ward or in a cell in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre. A penitentiary judge shall be informed about this placement.
3. A detainee who is suspected of committing an offence within an organised criminal group or organisation aimed at committing offences shall be placed in a remand centre in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre, unless particular circumstances militate against such placement.
4. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be applied to the detainee whose characteristics, personal circumstances, his/her behaviour while being detained in a remand centre or the degree of depravity pose a serious danger to society or to the security of a remand centre, and who:
1) is suspected of committing an offence, in particular:
(...)
b) with particular cruelty,
(...)
2) during the prior or current imprisonment posed a danger to the security of a prison or a remand centre in this way that:
(...)
d) unlawfully released or tried to escape from a prison or a remand centre or while being convoyed outside a prison or a remand centre.
(...)”.
Article 212 b
“1. In a remand centre a detainee referred to in Article 212a shall be kept in the following conditions:
1) cells and places designated for work, study, walks, visits, religious services, religious meetings and religious classes, as well as cultural and educational activities, physical exercise and sports, shall be equipped with adequate technical and protective security systems;
2) cells shall be controlled more often than those in which detainees [not classified as “dangerous”] are kept;
3) a detainee may study, work, participate directly in religious services, religious meetings and classes, and participate in cultural and educational activities, exercise and do sports only in the ward in which he/she is kept;
4) a detainee’s movement within a remand centre shall be under increased supervision and shall be restricted to what is strictly necessary;
5) a detainee shall be subjected to a personal check (kontrola osobista) each time he/she leaves and enters his/her cell;
6) a detainee’s walk shall take place in designated areas and under increased supervision;
...
8) visits shall take place in designated areas and under increased supervision. While having visits which prevent direct contact with visitors (open visits), the detainee is not allowed to consume groceries. ...;
9) a detainee may not use his/her own clothes or footwear”.
Articles 88 §3, 88a and 88b of the Code contain the same rules in respect of convicted persons.
2. Monitoring and personal check
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).
COMPLAINT
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.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant from 27 November 2004 to 17 June 2010, 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.
The Government are invited to submit copies of the relevant decisions imposing the regime on the applicant and further decisions extending the application of the regime.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy