Published on 9 January 2023
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 47406/21
T.S.
against Poland
lodged on 1 September 2021
communicated on 14 December 2022
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The application concerns conditions of detention in the National Centre for the Prevention of Dissocial Behaviour in Gostynin (“the Centre” or “the Gostynin Centre”).
In the past, the applicant had been convicted on multiple occasions. In the most recent judgment of 30 June 2006, the Warsaw Regional Court convicted him of various offences including rape on minors and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment. His prison term was due to come to an end on 17 April 2017.
During his imprisonment, the applicant was diagnosed with the personality and sexuality disorders. On 17 August 2016 the Director of Sztum Prison Requested the Gdańsk Regional Court to declare the applicant a person representing a threat (osoba stwarzająca zagrożenie) within the meaning of the Act of 22 November 2013 on the Procedure Regarding Mentally Disturbed Persons Representing a Threat to Life, Health or Sexual Freedom of Others (“the 2013 Act”) and to detain him at the Gostynin Centre.
On 9 February 2017 the Gdańsk Regional Court decided to subject the applicant to preventive supervision and ordered him to attend psychotherapy. The Director of the Sztum prison lodged an appeal requesting to have the applicant detained at the Gostynin Centre. On 8 August 2018 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal altered the first-instance judgment and decided to place the applicant at the Gostynin Centre; however, the judgment was quashed by the Supreme Court. On 29 June 2020, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal, having re‑examined the case, again ordered the applicant’s detention at the Gostynin Centre. On 19 March 2021 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the applicant’s cassation appeal. The applicant has been detained at the Gostynin Centre since 17 April 2017.
The applicant submits that since his detention, the Director of the Centre has not provided him with an individual therapy plan despite his explicit requests to this effect.
Since the Centre had been established, various reports were produced on the conditions prevailing in that facility, including the reports on the Ombudsman’s visits carried out on 26 June 2017 and 2 July 2018; the reports on the visits by the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture carried out from 18 to 20 February 2019 and from 8 to 10 March 2021; and the findings made in the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Poland carried out from 11 to 22 May 2017.
Pursuant to the regulation of the Minister of Health of 16 January 2014, the capacity of the Centre was sixty patients but, according to the above‑mentioned reports, the Centre quickly exceeded this number and in April 2021 there were ninety-three persons detained there.
The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the communication report in the case of W v. Poland, no. 43562/17, published on HUDOC on 7 February 2022.
The applicant complains that the Centre does not resemble a therapeutic institution on account of poor living conditions, shortages of staff, overcrowding and lack of space, intimidating atmosphere caused by the possibility of use of the coercive measures such as truncheons, handcuffs and pepper sprays, and lack of an individual therapy plan.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Article 3
1. Did the material conditions of the applicant’ s detention at the Gostynin Centre, in particular the personal space available, general overcrowding, and the presence of the guards equipped with means of coercion, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment? Reference is made to: (1) the reports on the Ombudsman’ s visits carried out on 26 June 2017 and 2 July 2018; (2) the reports on the visits by the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture carried out from 18 to 20 February 2019 and from 8 to 10 March 2021; and (3) the findings made in the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Poland carried out from 11 to 22 May 2017.
2. Have the Centre authorities prepared and implemented an individual therapy plan for the applicant?
3. Having regard to the conditions prevailing at the Gostynin Centre referred to in question number 1 and the issue raised in question number 2, was it possible for the applicant to properly follow the therapeutic treatment offered there? In the negative, did that situation amount to inhuman or degrading treatment (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 141‑148, 31 January 2019)?
Article 5 § 1 (e)
1. Have the Centre authorities prepared and implemented an individual therapy plan for the applicant? In the negative, having regard the purpose of the applicant’s detention and the authorities’ obligations under the 2013 Act to prepare for the patients of the Centre an individual therapy plan, was the applicant’s detention “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention?
2. Having regard to the conditions prevailing at the Gostynin Centre and the purpose of his detention, was the applicant’s detention “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ensured a proper therapeutic environment at the Gostynin Centre as required by Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention (see Rooman, cited above, §§ 205-211)? Reference is made to the reports mentioned above in question number 1 concerning the complaint under Article 3.