Communicated on 9 February 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 10727/17
Kamil IZDEBSKI
against Poland
lodged on 30 January 2017
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Kamil Izdebski, is a Polish national who was born in 1991 and is currently detained in Lublin Remand Centre.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 17 March 2012 the applicant was arrested and subsequently detained on remand on unspecified charges. He has remained in detention since that date.
On 6 May 2016 the Prison Commission at Opole Lubelskie Prison classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee” and he was transferred to Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre.
On 3 November 2016 the Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre Prison Commission extended the regime for a further three months. The applicant lodged a complaint against that extension, stating, inter alia, that he had not received a copy of it. On 9 December 2016 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the decision on the grounds of the applicant’s reprehensible behaviour and his lack of good character.
On an unspecified date, but not later than 26 April 2017, the applicant was taken to Lublin Remand Centre.
On 26 April 2017 the Lublin Remand Centre Prison Commission extended the dangerous detainee regime for a further three months. The applicant lodged a complaint against that extension, stating, inter alia, that he had not received a copy of it. On 27 June 2017 the Lublin Regional Court upheld the decision on the grounds that the applicant had initiated and participated in a hunger strike in Opole Lubelskie Remand Centre and had received fifteen disciplinary punishments during the previous three months.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 110-17, 17 April 2012), and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 49-56, 17 April 2012).
On 10 September 2015 some of the relevant provisions of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences were amended. The amendments entered into force on 24 October 2015.
Article 88a of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences currently reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“1. A convicted person who poses a serious danger to society or to the security of a prison is a convicted person who has committed a crime posing a serious threat to society, in particular: ...
2) during a previous or current period of detention has posed a threat to the safety of a prison or a remand centre by:
a) leading or actively participating in a collective protest in a prison or a remand centre, ...
2. When taking or verifying a decision on the classification of a convicted person as posing a serious danger to society or to the security of a prison, a prison commission takes into account:
1) the character and personal circumstances of that convicted person ...
3) behaviour in prison,
3) lack of moral character or the progress of rehabilitation ...”
Article 88b of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“3. When requested by a convicted person or his lawyer, but not more often than once per three months, a prison commission presents the reasons for classifying that convicted person as posing a serious danger to society or to the security of a prison ...”
Article 212a of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences currently reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“3. Article 88a §§ 1 and 2 are applicable accordingly to the classification of a detainee on remand as posing a serious danger to society or to the security of a remand centre.”
Article 212b of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences currently reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:
“2. The behaviour of a person detained on remand, who poses a serious danger to society or to the security of a detention centre, is to be monitored permanently. The monitoring shall cover the prison cell, including the part designated for sanitary and hygiene purposes, and the places referred to in paragraph 1 (1) [of this provision]. A recording shall be made of the images and sound [obtained through monitoring].
3. Article 88b §§ 2 and 3 is applicable accordingly.”
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains, mainly under Article 3 of the Convention, that the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on him amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and was in breach of that provision.
QUESTION
Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant since 6 May 2016, was he subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention? The parties are requested to refer in their observations to the principles established by the Court in the leading case of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, 17 April 2012).
The Government are invited to submit a copy of the decision of 6 May 2016 of the Prison Commission of Opole Lubelskie Prison and copies of the following decisions of the Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre Prison Commission and Lublin Remand Centre Prison Commission.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy