Information Note on the Court’s case-law 36
November 2001
Iwańczuk v. Poland - 25196/94
Judgment 15.11.2001 [Section IV]
Article 3
Degrading treatment
Abusive remarks made by prison guards during strip search: violation
Article 5
Article 5-3
Guarantees to appear for trial
Refusal to accept particular form of bail: violation
Facts: Criminal proceedings were brought against the applicant and he was placed in detention in May 1992. His detention was prolonged on several occasions but in December 1993 the Regional Court ordered his release on bail of 2,000,000,000 (old) zlotys. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision in January 1994. The Regional Court subsequently reduced the amount of bail to 1,500,000,000 (old) zlotys. The applicant requested that bail be accepted in the form of a mortgage on his property and produced an expert valuation and evidence of his ownership. In February 1994 he complained that the Regional Court had failed to take any steps to implement its decision of December 1993 and submitted that his detention since then had been unlawful. The court later ordered that the bail had to be deposited in cash or in State obligations. However, in April 1994 the Court of Appeal quashed the decision relating to the amount of bail and the Regional Court then lowered the amount to 100,000,000 (old) zlotys in cash and a mortgage of 750,000,000 (old) zlotys. The applicant was released in May 1994. The criminal proceedings are still pending. The applicant claims that during his detention he was ordered to undergo a body search before he could exercise his right to vote. He had to strip to his underwear and was subjected to humiliating and abusive remarks by the guards. As he refused to remove his underwearm, he was not allowed to vote.
Law: Article 3 – The applicant was not charged with a violent crime, had no criminal record and had been peaceful throughout his detention. It had not been shown that there were grounds for fearing that he would behave violently and consequently it had not been shown that a body search was justified. Moreover, in the absence of a proper investigation into the applicant's allegations about the guards' abusive remarks, little weight could be attached to the Government's arguments refuting them. While strip searches may sometimes be necessary, they must be conducted in an appropiate manner. In this case, the guards' behaviour was intended to humiliate and amounted to degrading treatment.
Conclusion: violation (6 votes to 1).
Article 5 § 3 – The courts had found in December 1993 that the applicant's release would not jeopardise the proceedings, but he was only released over four months later, as during that period the decisions as to the amount and form of bail were changed several times. The courts initially refused to accept bail in the form of a mortgage, without questioning the applicant's title to the property, indicating a reluctance on their part to accept that form of bail, which would require further formalities in the event of non-appearance. However, that was not a sufficient reason for keeping the applicant in detention for four months after the decision that he could in principle be released.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 6 § 1 – Despite the complexity of the proceedings, the length (8½ years since Poland's acceptance of the right of individual petition) could not be regarded as reasonable.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
Article 41 – The Court awarded the applicant 30,000 (new) zlotys (PLN) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and also made an award in respect of costs and expenses.
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy