CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 mai 2015

.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 } .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 } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13F94BE0 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.3pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; 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 } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s13F94BE1 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .sD0F961A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s6667B4BF { width:213.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 1804/11 Zdzisław WÓDKA against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12   May 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Päivi Hirvelä, President,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 November 2010, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 5 January 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Zdzisław Wódka, is a Polish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Płock. He was represented before the Court by Mr   R.   Rumpel, a lawyer practising in Łódź. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The application had been communicated to the Government . A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was serving a sentence of imprisonment from 14 July 2009 until 3 December 2013 imposed on him for offences committed in an organised criminal group. On 14 June 2010 the applicant was transferred from the Warsaw – Służewiec Remand Centre to the Płock Prison. On 11 August 2010 he was transferred from the infirmary to a monitored solitary cell where he remained until 22 October 2010. The applicant’s placement in this cell was connected with the need to monitor his health problems which he had frequently reported to prison authorities. On 12 August 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Łódź Regional Inspectorate of Prison Service. The applicant complained about the fact that he had been placed in solitary confinement without any formal decision on imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime. In the letter of 29 October 2010, the Director of the Łódź Regional Inspectorate of Prison Service informed the applicant that the decision to place him in solitary confinement had been lawful. The Director stressed that the applicant had been placed in solitary confinement for medical reasons, i.e.   to monitor his state of health. The applicant attempted to open criminal proceedings regarding alleged ill–treatment by the prison officers who in August 2010 escorted him to the solitary confinement. On 27 October 2010 the Płock District Prosecutor refused to open an investigation. The allegations were found to be unsubstantiated as the applicant had been placed in the monitored cell in order to check his state of health. The applicant appealed. He complained that he had been kept in the cell for “dangerous detainees” without any formal decision. On 30 December 2010 the Płock District Court upheld the above decision. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of dangerous detainee status are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 105-117, 17 April 2012), and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 44-56, 17 April 2012). According to Article 88   (a)     §   3 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences, a prisoner convicted of an offence committed in an organised criminal group may be placed in a cell or ward in conditions ensuring increased protection of closed nature. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the de facto imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on him amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and was in breach of this provision. THE LAW The applicant complained about his placement in a solitary cell. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention. After failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, the Government informed the Court by letter of 5   January 2015 that they proposed a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. The Government submitted that the dangerous detainee regime had never been applied to the applicant who was only placed in a solitary cell for two months and eleven days because of the need to monitor his state of health. 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 wish to express by way of the unilateral declaration their acknowledgement of the violation of Article 3 of the Convention with regard to the applicant’s placement in a solitary cell between 11 August 2010 and 22 October 2010. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 5,000 which, taking into account the short period of the applicant’s placement in the solitary cell, they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law and the particular circumstances of the foregoing case. Referring to the present case, the Government would like to attract the Court’s attention to the fact that the applicant has been convicted for acting within an organised criminal group and that he was serving his prison sentence between 14 July 2009 and 3 December 2013 in the penitentiary unit of higher security. Moreover, the Government would like to submit that during the applicant’s placement in the unit the applicant was not categorised as a “dangerous detainee”, thus, no limitations relating to a dangerous detainee status were undertaken against the applicant. The applicant did not have to undergo searches, wear handcuffs or any other restriction resulting from “dangerous detainee” regime. In this connection, the conditions of the applicant’s detention cannot be compared to the special regime conditions of the applicants Horych ( Horych v. Poland , judgment of 17 April 2012, no. 13621/08) or Piechowicz ( Piechowicz v. Poland , judgment of 17 April 2012, no. 20071/07). However, the applicant has been placed in a solitary cell between 11 August 2010 and 22   October 2010 only due to the verification of the health problems reported frequently by the applicant. The authorities of the penitentiary facility, acting in accordance with Article 88 a § 3 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences, did not inform the penitentiary judge about placing the applicant in the solitary cell. The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 of 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 the 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. (...)” By letter of 9 February 2015, the applicant’s lawyer indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the amount proposed by the Government was too low. He did not comment on the Government’s submissions that the applicant in fact had not been classified as a “dangerous detainee”. Instead, he focused on the quality of the applicant’s medical care in prison; this complaint, however, had not been communicated to the Government. The Court reiterates 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 reiterates 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 has examined the declaration carefully 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, 18   September   2007). The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article   3 as regards various aspects of application of the “dangerous detainee” regime (see, for example, Piechowicz v. Poland and Horych v. Poland, cited above). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the present case, 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 ). Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article   37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia (dec.), no. 18369/07, 4   March 2008). 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 accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 4 June 2015.   Fatoş Aracı   Päivi Hirvelä Deputy Registrar   President