FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13584/15
Dariusz SYRYJCZYK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 22 May 2018 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 March 2015,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Dariusz Syryjczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and is detained in Goleniów Prison.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant’s accident and deprivation of liberty
4. On 8 June 2008 the applicant broke his right knee-cap in a car accident. As a result, he suffered pain in his right knee and received painkilling injections. While at liberty, he did not make any appointment to see an orthopaedist.
5. On 9 August 2010 the applicant was arrested and detained in Szczecin Remand Centre, where he remained until 4 January 2011. On the latter date he was transferred to Goleniów Prison where he is currently serving his prison sentence.
2. The medical care afforded to the applicant in prison
6. On 2 December 2010 the applicant complained about his knee problem to the prison doctor. On 14 December 2010 he was examined by an orthopaedist, who did not find any post-traumatic bone lesions.
7. On 23 February 2011 the applicant underwent an orthopaedic examination in Goleniów Prison. Damage to the right medial meniscus was diagnosed. Arthroscopy in so-called “planned mode” (“w trybie planowanym”) was recommended. The orthopaedist issued a medical certificate to the Warsaw Mokotów Remand Centre’s Orthopaedic Ward and asked them to fix a date for the arthroscopy.
8. On 5 April 2011 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) dismissed the applicant’s application for prison leave in order to have the knee problem cured outside prison. That court indicated that the treatment could be arranged within the prison’s medical service.
9. On 25 May 2011 the applicant underwent an MRI examination. Probable rupture of the meniscus was diagnosed.
10. Because of hearings in trials in which the applicant was involved, several dates set for the applicant’s hospitalisation were cancelled.
11. The applicant complained of inadequate medical care to the Director of Goleniów Prison who, in a letter of 12 April 2012, replied that the applicant’s transfer to hospital was not possible because of the pending proceedings in which the applicant was involved. He stated also that the applicant’s life was not in danger.
12. On 19 April 2012 the applicant had a further consultation with the orthopaedist. Arthroscopy was again recommended. The applicant’s stay in the Orthopaedic Ward of Warsaw Mokotów Remand Centre was fixed for September 2012.
13. On 8 May 2012 the applicant was withdrawn from unpaid work in prison because of his deteriorating health.
14. From 8 August to 7 September 2012 the applicant stayed in the Orthopaedic Ward of Warsaw Mokotów Remand Centre where, on 24 August 2012, he underwent arthroscopy.
15. On 7 September 2012 the applicant was discharged from the Orthopaedic Ward.
3. Civil proceedings against the State Treasury
16. On 4 August 2011 the applicant brought a civil action against the State Treasury – Szczecin Remand Centre, Goleniów Prison, Stargard Szczeciński Prison, Wierzchowo Pomorskie Prison and Wronki Prison for infringement of his personal rights, claiming that from 2 October 1995 to 4 January 2011 he had been detained in overcrowded cells.
17. By a letter of 28 March 2012 the applicant supplemented his claim by complaining that he had been provided with inadequate medical care by the prison healthcare system during his detention. In that letter he stated that he had received only painkillers by way of treatment, and that he had had to use crutches. He also stated that he had been refused transport to the hospital simply because of the proceedings pending before the Goleniów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy).
18. On 20 August 2013 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action, finding that, as the applicant had failed to comply with a 3-year statute of limitation, his claim as regards the period before 4 August 2008 was time-barred. The court noted that, as to the period from 9 August 2010 to 4 August 2011, the applicant had not been detained in overcrowded cells.
19. As to the alleged lack of medical care in detention, the first-instance court established that the applicant had had a car accident prior to his imprisonment. Subsequently, on 23 February 2011 in Goleniów Prison, he had been examined by an orthopaedist. Meniscus damage had been diagnosed and arthroscopy prescribed. On 25 May 2011 an MRI test had been performed. The applicant had undergone arthroscopy on 8 August 2012 and had stayed at the hospital until 7 September 2012. The court underlined that the applicant had failed to prove that the treatment he had received was inadequate. It further noted that it was in the applicant’s interest to take part in the proceedings, and that outside the prison the waiting time for arthroscopy was also considerable, because of many cases of meniscus injury and limited public funds.
20. The applicant appealed against that judgment.
21. On 19 December 2013 the Szczecin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the applicant’s appeal upholding the first-instance court’s findings of fact and law. It found that the applicant had not appealed against the decision of 5 April 2011 by which he was refused a break in serving his sentence and that he had failed to reapply for such a break. The court further pointed out that the applicant had not contested the letter of 12 April 2012, in which he was informed that he could not be transported to the orthopaedic ward because of the pending proceedings and because his health problems were not life-threatening.
22. On 10 December 2014 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) refused to entertain the applicant’s cassation appeal.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. Medical care in detention
23. The relevant provisions of domestic law concerning medical care in prisons and remand centres are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases Sławomir Musiał v. Poland, no. 28300/06, §§ 48 and 51-53, 20 January 2009, Kaprykowski v. Poland, no. 23052/05, §§ 36-39, 3 February 2009, and Bujak v. Poland, no. 686/12, §§ 51-52, 21 March 2017.
2. Provisions regulating the State Treasury’s liability in tort
24. The relevant provisions of domestic law concerning civil-law provisions which regulate the State Treasury’s liability in tort are set out in the Court’s case Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, § 78, 22 October 2009.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that he had been provided with inadequate medical care by the prison healthcare system during his detention in Goleniów Prison.
THE LAW
A. Submissions by the parties
1. The Government
25. The Government contended that the application was manifestly ill‑founded and thus inadmissible under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. They submitted that the applicant’s health was constantly monitored by the domestic authorities, which reacted promptly to the applicant’s health problems. He was also provided with appropriate medical assistance and treatment. His stay in prison did not pose a threat to his life or any danger for his health.
26. In particular, the Government pointed out that ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity in order to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. Relying on the circumstances which should be taken into account while assessing the level of severity of the treatment, laid down in Ireland v. the United Kingdom, no. 5310/71, § 162, 18 January 1978, the Government stated that the conditions of the applicant’s imprisonment could not be considered to be inhuman or degrading.
2. The applicant
27. The applicant contested these arguments, stating that the authorities had failed to transfer him to another prison facility where he could have undergone arthroscopy. The reason given for the lack of proper treatment was the pending proceedings. As a result, he suffered pain for one and a half years.
B. The Court’s assessment
1. General principles
28. The Court reiterates that, according to its case-law, ill-treatment must attain a minimum level of severity if it is to fall within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention. The assessment of this minimum level is, in the nature of things, relative; it depends on all the circumstances of the case, such as the duration of the treatment, its physical and mental effects and, in some cases, the sex, age and state of health of the victim (see Vilvarajah and Others v. the United Kingdom, 30 October 1991, Series A no. 215, p. 36, § 107; Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 91, ECHR 2000-XI; and Peers v. Greece, no. 28524/95, § 67, ECHR 2001-III).
29. The State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure of deprivation of liberty do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], cited above, §§ 92-94 and Popov v. Russia, no. 26853/04, § 208, 13 July 2006). In cases concerning the detention of persons who were ill, the Court has examined whether or not the applicant received adequate medical assistance in prison. The Court reiterates in this regard that even though Article 3 does not entitle a detainee to be released “on compassionate grounds”, it has always interpreted the requirement to secure the health and well-being of detainees, among other things, as an obligation on the State to provide detainees with the requisite medical assistance (see Kudła, cited above, § 94 and Kalashnikov v. Russia, no. 47095/99, § 95, ECHR 2002‑VI).
30. Medical treatment provided within prison facilities must be appropriate, that is, at a level comparable to that which the State authorities have committed themselves to provide to the population as a whole. Nevertheless, this does not mean that every detainee must be guaranteed the same level of medical treatment that is available in the best health establishments outside prison facilities. On the whole, the Court reserves to itself sufficient flexibility in defining the required standard of health care, determining it on a case‑by‑case basis. That standard should be “compatible with the human dignity” of a detainee, but should also take into account “the practical demands of imprisonment” (see Klimov v. Russia, no. 54436/14, §§ 60-61, 4 October 2016 and the authorities cited therein).
2. Application of the above principles to the present case
31. The applicant’s main contention was that, despite the doctor’s order to perform arthroscopy, the operation was postponed because of the pending proceedings. During that time he received only painkillers.
32. However, the applicant did not prove that the decisions to postpone the arthroscopy had been made without consultation with a doctor. He likewise failed to prove that, between the unsuccessful request for a break in serving his sentence (see paragraph 5) and the lodging of the letter of 28 March 2012 (see paragraph 14), he had made any complaints concerning health care in prison to the relevant authorities, which limits the period when the authorities were sufficiently aware of the applicant’s dissatisfaction with the medical care afforded to him to five months – from 28 March to 24 August 2012.
33. The applicant’s surgery was to be scheduled in so-called “planned mode”, which meant that there was no urgent need to operate. The court notes that the domestic courts which examined the applicant’s complaint held that the waiting time for arthroscopy for patients outside prison was also considerable, in view of limited public funds and a high number of patients qualifying for surgery (see paragraph 19).
34. The Court reiterates that the standard of medical treatment provided within prison facilities must be appropriate, that is, at a level comparable to that which the State authorities have committed themselves to provide to the population as a whole (see Klimov, § 60, cited above). The applicant failed to prove that the wait for his arthroscopy had been longer than the average waiting time for the same surgery outside prison.
35. The Court notes that before the arthroscopy was performed, the applicant had been examined by doctors on several occasions and that he had remained under constant medical care. The court is therefore satisfied that the authorities demonstrated sufficient concern for his health.
36. Lastly, there is no indication that the allegedly late performance of the arthroscopy led to any lasting physical damage.
37. The Court concludes that the treatment in the applicant’s case did not attain a minimum level of severity to fall within the ambit of Article 3 of the Convention.
38. It follows that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 14 June 2018.
Renata DegenerAleš Pejchal
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy