Communicated on 16 February 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 58042/17
Jarosław SZULC
against Poland
lodged on 24 July 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jarosław Szulc, is a Polish national, who was born in 1987 and is detained in Sztum Prison.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is Muslim and does not eat pork. He observes Ramadan and, consequently during one month in the year he can only eat after sunset.
From 26 August 2014 until an unspecified date, prior to 23 July 2017, the applicant was serving a prison sentence in Warszawa-Mokotów Prison.
On 27 August 2014 he reported to the prison administration that he had religious and dietary requirements as described above. In reply, he was informed that he could only ask for a meat-free diet, as there was no pork‑free diet as such available. It was later established, in the course of the civil proceedings described below, that at the material time the applicant’s prison had already been providing pork-free diet to a few other detainees.
On 18 August 2014 the applicant lodged a request to be provided with a meat‑free diet.
On 29 August 2014 the prison governor granted this request.
From 18 August to 9 September 2014, the applicant continued receiving a basic diet which contained pork.
As of 9 September 2014 the actual meat-free meals were provided to the applicant. They occasionally comprised soft cheese and yogurts which contained pork gelatine.
On 10 March 2015 the applicant asked the prison administration for a pork-free diet.
On 13 March 2015 the prison governor granted that request.
As of 14 March 2015 the applicant was provided with the diet sought. His meals, after that date, occasionally comprised products containing pork gelatine.
During the Ramadan, the applicant received his meals at the same time as other prisoners and had no possibility to heat them up after sunset. He submits that prison guards in his ward had a microwave and the meals could have easily been heated up.
The applicant brought a civil action against the prison, seeking compensation of 40,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 10,000 euros, EUR) for infringement of his personal rights.
On 30 December 2015 the Warszawa-Mokotów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) awarded the applicant compensation of PLN 5,000 (approximately EUR 1,250). The court referred to the domestic law, the soft law of the Council of Europe, the Convention, and the Court’s case law. It underlined the significance of freedom of religion and held that the prison administration had failed to make reasonable adjustments in order to enable the applicant to observe his religion. The court observed that the preparation of meals for the applicant in line with his religious beliefs would not have placed an excessive burden on the prison administrations. When deciding on the sum of compensation, the court took into consideration the impact that the lack of proper nutrition had had on the applicant’s functioning in prison and the relatively short period in which the situation occurred.
On 16 March 2017 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) amended the above-mentioned judgment and dismissed the applicant’s action in its entirety. The appellate court held that freedom to manifest one’s religion was not infringed upon in the situation in which the prisoner had to bear some inconveniences related to the imprisonment, such as not being provided with meat-free diet for a short time or not being able to heat a meal during Ramadan “because a lot of people who [were] not imprisoned [did] not have a properly balanced diet, and even [suffered] famine, or [did] not have a possibility to eat a hot meal every day. The dignity of a convicted person who [was] placed in prison [was] not infringed upon if [the person’s situation] correspond[ed] to the generally accepted norms of the humanity”. The court stated that the prison administration’s actions towards the applicant were standard actions towards a prisoner and could not justify awarding him any compensation.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 9 of the Convention that the prison administration’s failure to provide him with the pork-free meals and to facilitate him reheating his meals during the Ramadan violated his freedom to observe his religion. He also submits that his diet was incomplete because he could not consume the products which contained pork or pork gelatine.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Has there been a violation of the applicant’s freedom of religion, contrary to Article 9 of the Convention on account of the fact that the Warszawa‑Mokotów Prison authorities did not provide the applicant with a fully non-pork diet and facilitate re-heating of his meals during Ramadan (see Jakóbski v. Poland, no. 18429/06, 7 December 2010 and Vartic v. Romania (no. 2), no. 14150/08, 17 December 2013)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy