CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 octobre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .sC2C80E1C { width:180.76pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 26634/07 by Rafał MIZERA against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Ján Šikuta,   Mihai Poalelungi,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 June 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Rafał Mizera, is a Polish national who was born in   1974 and lives in Kostrzyca. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of   Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows: It appears that at the beginning of May 2007 the applicant was committed to Zaręba Górna Prison, where he remained until an unspecified date in August 2008. The living, sanitary and hygienic conditions in Zaręba Górna Prison were inadequate. Initially, the applicant was held in cell no. 4 in wing no. III. His cell was overcrowded. It measured fifteen square metres and was shared by six   prisoners including the applicant. Three months later the applicant was transferred to a cell adapted from   the prison entertainment room. The cell in question measured over sixty-five square metres and was shared by twenty prisoners including the applicant. There were sixteen other cells in the applicant's wing and approximately a hundred prisoners were held there at a time. In the building there were two washrooms with six washbasins each and two toilets with two cubicles and one urinal each. They were accessible only from the corridor. Cells were kept locked for   thirty minutes twice a day and during this time prisoners had no access to the toilet. Hot water was available to prisoners only for thirty minutes three times per day. Prisoners were entitled to have one shower per week. But the   shower room was located in a building 150 metres away from the   applicant's wing. Hygiene products were supplied in insufficient quantities. Mattresses and blankets used by prisoners were old and dirty.   Prisoners did not have regular access to drinking water. Water in   the   applicant's building was drawn directly from a nearby pond and   drinking water had to be brought from another pavilion. When the   buildings were locked for the night the applicant and his fellow inmates were supplied with two buckets of drinking water. In addition the applicant submitted that his correspondence from the   Ombudsman and various State authorities had been opened and   monitored by the warders of Zaręba Górna Prison. The applicant lodged numerous complaints with the penitentiary authorities about the conditions of his detention and the monitoring of   his   correspondence. He has received only one reply. By a letter of 27 August 2007 the Deputy Director of the Wrocław Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service ( Okręgowy Inspektorat Służby Więziennej ) acknowledged that by mistake one of the applicant's letters to   the State authorities ( list urzędowy ) had been considered to be his private correspondence. Moreover, the applicant was informed that he had been accommodated in his cell in compliance with the rules on the quartering of   prisoners. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of   inadequate conditions in Zaręba Górna Prison. THE LAW By letter dated 28 March 2008 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 9 May 2008. The applicant was also informed that the President of the Chamber had decided that legal aid should be granted to the applicant for his representation before the Court and the applicant was instructed to provide the Registry with the name of   his representative by 18 April 2008. By letters dated 19 August 2008, sent by registered post to   the   applicant's address in prison and to his home address, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 9 May 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to   pursue the application. There is no indication whether the applicant received the letters. He has not to date resumed correspondence with   the   Court in the instant case. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be   regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and   its   Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In   view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President