CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 5 décembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sC800182F { font-family:Arial; color:#0000ff } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34D46E87 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sAADB120E { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s16BDBD5C { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:28.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s66CC5A41 { width:26.02pt; display:inline-block } .s87818EE6 { width:187.95pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 36646/09 Andrzej SZWED against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on   5   December 2013 as a Committee composed of:   George Nicolaou, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek ,   Faris Vehabović, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 June 2009, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 14 June 2013 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS The applicant, Mr Andrzej Szwed, is a Polish national, who was born in 1959 and is currently detained in Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J.   Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The part of the application concerning conditions of detention had been communicated to the Government . COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the allegedly inadequate conditions of his detention in Łódź Remand Centre. In particular, he complained that the cells lacked proper ventilation and lighting, that the toilet was not separated from the living area and that the statutory minimum cell space of 3 m² per person was not provided. 2.     Relying on Article 14 of the Convention, the applicant further complained that he was not provided with a vegetarian diet during his detention in Łódź Remand Centre. THE LAW A.     Conditions of detention in Łódź Remand Centre The applicant complained about conditions of his detention, in particular about the overcrowding and poor sanitary conditions. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention which provides as follows: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 14 June 2013 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “... The Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration –   their acknowledgement of the fact that the applicant’s conditions of detention, in particular overcrowding as identified by the Court in the pilot judgment given in the case of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) on 22 October 2009 (see paragraphs 135   and 147 et seq.), were not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. In these circumstances, and having particular regard to violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s conditions of detention, the Court’s pilot judgment in the case Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) as well as domestic jurisprudence submitted to this case, the Government declare that they offer to pay the applicant the amount of PLN   12,700 (twelve thousand seven hundred Polish zlotys), which they consider to be reasonable in the present circumstances of the case. The sum referred to above includes the sum of PLN 2,700 (two thousand seven hundred Polish zlotys) which is to cover the costs and expenses of the proceedings before the domestic courts, which are payable by the applicant to the State Treasury on account of the judgment of the Łódź Court of Appeal of 18 November 2009 (case   no.   IA Ca 740/09). The sum of PLN 12,700, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be payable within three months from the date of notification of   the decision taken by the Court pursuant to   Article 37   § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In   the event of   failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to   pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be   accepted by the Court as ‘any other reason’ justifying the striking out of the case of   the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ...” The applicant did not submit any comments in reply. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37 §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court examined carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR   2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26   June   2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03). The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the conditions of detention (see, for example, Orchowski v.   Poland, no. 17885/04 ; Norbert Sikorski v. Poland, no.   17599/05 and Łatak v.   Poland (dec.) , no.   52070/08). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)). Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list. B.     Remaining complaint The applicant relied on Article 14 in complaining that during his detention in Łódź Remand Centre he was not provided with a vegetarian diet. The instant application bears some resemblance to a recent Article 9 case involving prisoners requesting a special diet (see Jakóbski v. Poland , no.   18429/06, 7 December 2010). It then must be considered whether the applicant’s request to be served a meat-free diet constituted a “manifestation of his personal beliefs” as protected by Article   9. It is to be noted that the Court has held that the term “beliefs” in Article   9, denotes views that attain a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance (see, Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom , 25 February 1982, § 36). The facts of the case show that, upon being admitted to Łódź Remand Centre, the applicant requested to be served meat-free meals, reasoning that such a diet would help him to feel better. The applicant had not claimed to be a vegetarian. Neither had he given any other reason for his request, such as religion or other personal beliefs. In view of the above, the applicant’s request did not constitute an expression of a coherent view on a fundamental issue, and it cannot therefore be regarded as a “manifestation of personal beliefs” in the sense protected by Article 9. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 3 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaint in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (c) of the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Fatoş Aracı   George Nicolaou   Deputy Registrar   President