Published on 20 October 2025
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 3032/22
Zbigniew STONOGA
against Poland
lodged on 15 December 2021
communicated on 29 September 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns routine strip searches and constant video surveillance of the applicant who was classified as a “so-called detainee of media interest.”
The applicant is a politician and entrepreneur. On 8 January 2021 he was arrested in the Netherlands on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant issued by the Polish authorities in connection with an investigation for fraud.
On 14 January 2021 the Director of the Warsaw Białołęka Prison (“the Prison Director”) decided to place the applicant in a cell under constant CCTV surveillance. The decision was justified by reference to the grounds of the security of the prison and that of the applicant.
On 2 June 2021 the Prison Director issued instructions on how to deal with the applicant, indicating that he was a “so-called detainee of media interest” (zalecenia dotyczące postępowania z osadzonym tzw. Medialny). This instruction also stated that the applicant was to be strip searched every time he entered or left his cell. The applicant’s lawyers complained that the decision on routine strip searches had not been formally issued and such an instruction could not have been appealed against.
On 2 June 2021 the Prison Director decided once again to place the applicant in a cell under constant CCTV surveillance on the grounds of the prison’s and the applicant’s security. The decision was extended every month and included an information that an appeal against it could be lodged with the penitentiary court. The applicant appealed against some of these decisions.
On 24 November 2021 the Warsaw-Praga Penitentiary Court (“the Penitentiary Court”) examined the applicant’s appeal against the decision to place him under video surveillance. The court upheld the decision finding that the measures taken against the applicant were justified by his status as a “so-called detainee of media interest.”
The applicant complained about the manner in which his detention was carried out. On 31 December 2021 the Penitentiary Court ordered the Prison Director to issue a formal decision ordering strip searches. The court also held that there was no logical connection between the applicant being the subject of media interest and the need to subject him to strip searches every time he met with his lawyers or returned to his cell for other reasons. In these circumstances, strip searches were deemed to be unjustified and disproportionate, thus constituting a breach of both domestic law and the Convention.
On 3 February 2022 the Penitentiary Court quashed the Director’s instruction to classify the applicant as a “detainee of media interest.” It underlined that such a regime was not recognised under the domestic law.
Each of the three above-mentioned decisions was given by a different judge of the Penitentiary Court.
On 7 March 2022 the Penitentiary Court quashed the decision to place the applicant under the video monitoring finding that the decision lacked the required justification for the measure. On 17 March 2022 the Prison Director again placed the applicant under constant video monitoring.
On 16 June 2022 the applicant was released from detention.
The applicant complains that he was classified as a “detainee of media interest” although no such regime was provided for by law. The restrictions imposed on him, including routine strip searches and constant video surveillance of his cell were thus in breach of the law. He raises complaints under Articles 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and 8 (right to respect for his private life) of the Convention. He also complains that this particular regime had not been formally imposed on him and that he could not appeal against an “instruction” of the Director, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the conditions of the applicant’s detention, in particular routine strip searches and video surveillance, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention ? In particular what was the legal basis of the decision to classify the applicant as “so-called detainee of media interest” which involved routine strip searches?Did the situation complained of amount to a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his private life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was the interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?Linked to the above question, has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, would a civil claim for compensation for the infringement of the applicant’s personal rights be an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision in respect of the applicant’s complaint under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention?