CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 21 juin 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5830ECD9 { width:0.2pt; display:inline-block } .sCA6C4ED6 { width:194.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 77695/12 Mirosław Marian NATKAŃSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   June 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Nona Tsotsoria, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the comments submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Mirosław Marian Natkański, is a Polish national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Łódź. 2.     The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case 3.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The period of the applicant’s detention 4.     From an unspecified date in November 2005 to 13 July 2009 the applicant was in continuous detention. 5.     He was committed consecutively to the following remand centres: (1)   Łęczyca Remand Centre from November 2005 until 26 September 2006; (2) Łowicz Remand Centre from 26 September 2006 until October 2007 and from 13 March until 13 July 2009; (3) Łódź Remand Centre from October 2007 until 13 February 2009; and (4) Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre from 13 February until 13 March 2009. 2.     The conditions of the applicant’s detention in Remand Centres: in Łęczyca, in Łowicz, in Łódź and in Piotrków Trybunalski 6.     The applicant submitted that during his detention in the above-mentioned detention facilities he had been committed to overcrowded cells in which the space per person had been inferior to the Polish statutory minimum standard of 3 m 2 for a total of 3 years and 6 months. 7.     During his detention in Łowicz Remand Centre the applicant was infected with hepatitis and the infection was closely related to the overcrowding and sanitary conditions. 8.     During his detention in Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre the applicant applied for leave from prison in order to attend his father’s funeral. He was granted the leave on 15 January 2009. He was transported late to the funeral and arrived at the cemetery when the coffin was already buried so he could not participate in the ceremony. 3.     Civil proceedings against the State Treasury 9.     On 17 October 2008 the applicant brought a civil action for infringement of his personal rights on account of the inadequate living conditions in Łęczyca, Łowicz, Łódź and Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centres, infection with hepatitis and failing to bring him to his father’s funeral on time. The applicant argued that he had been detained in overcrowded cells below the minimum social standard, the sanitary and hygiene conditions had been inadequate which resulted in his hepatitis infection. He claimed 1,000,000 Polish zlotys (PLN – 250,000 euros (EUR)) in compensation and a life annuity to be granted. In his letter of 24   March 2010 the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer modified the claim in this way that requested PLN 300,000 (EUR 75,000) to be granted. 10.     On 30 January 2012 the Łódź Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) dismissed the applicant’s action. The domestic court found that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells between November 2005 and 13 July 2009, had been infected with hepatitis in Łowicz Remand Centre on 10 May 2007 and had not been escorted to his father’s funeral in a timely manner. It was concluded, however, that the applicant had failed to demonstrate that the impugned actions of the respondent (the relevant prison authorities) had constituted unlawful conduct for which they would be liable. 11.     On 25 July 2012 the Łódź Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) partly accepted the applicant’s appeal, holding that although the first-instance court had correctly established the circumstances of the case, it had failed to apply the law properly. The Łódź Court of Appeal changed the first-instance court’s judgment in this way that awarded the applicant PLN   5,000 (EUR   1,250) compensation for detention conditions, infection with hepatitis and failure to be brought for the funeral of the applicant’s father in a timely manner. The   Court of Appeal ordered the applicant also to pay to the State Treasury PLN 1,000 (EUR 250) as costs of the proceedings. 12.     After the present application had been lodged with the Court, on 21   August 2013, the Supreme Court, having examined the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer’s cassation appeal against the Łódź Court of Appeal’s judgment of 25 July 2012, quashed this judgment in the part in which it had dismissed the applicant’s original claim. It awarded the applicant PLN   15,000 (EUR   3,750) with the statutory interest from 1 November 2008 in compensation for the overcrowding and inadequate sanitary conditions, for the infection with hepatitis and for the failure to bring the applicant to his father’s funeral in a timely manner. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 13.     A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning general rules governing the conditions of detention in Poland and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that the conditions of their detention were inadequate are set out in the Court’s pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04, §§ 75-85, 22 October 2009) and Norbert Sikorski v.   Poland (no. 17599/05, §§ 45-88, 22 October 2009). More recent developments are described in the Court’s decision in the case of Łatak   v.   Poland (no. 52070/08, §§ 25-54, 12   October 2010). 14.     Relevant description of the rules governing the prisoner’s rights in relation to the funerals of their parents are set out in the Court’s judgment Płoski v. Poland (no. 26761/95, 12 November 2002). COMPLAINTS 15.     The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about overcrowding and inadequate living conditions during his detention in Łęczyca, Łowicz, Łódź and Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centres and under Article 8 of the Convention about a violation of his right to be brought to his father’s funeral in time. THE LAW Alleged violation of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention 16.     The applicant complained about overcrowding and inadequate living conditions during his detention in Łęczyca, Łowicz, Łódź and Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centres, and that he had not been brought to his father’s funeral in time. Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention provide: Article 3 “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”. Article 8 “1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 1.     The parties’ submissions (a)     The Government’s submissions 17.     The Government submitted that the applicant had lost his victim status as on 21 August 2013 the Supreme Court awarded the applicant 15,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (EUR 3,750) with the statutory interest from 1   November 2008 in compensation for the overcrowding and inadequate sanitary conditions, for the infection with hepatitis and for the failure to bring the applicant to his father’s funeral in a timely manner (see paragraph   19 above). 18.     The Government submitted that the domestic courts adjudicated in favour of the applicant in total the sum of 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. EUR 5,000) with the statutory interest from 1 November 2008. 19.     The Government drew the Court’s attention to the fact that the national authorities had acknowledged that there had been a breach of the relevant provisions of the Convention and that the applicant had been provided with sufficient and adequate redress for the infringement of his rights. (b)     The applicant’s submission 20.     In his letter of 6 December 2013 the applicant informed the Court that the amount of 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (EUR 5,000) had not been paid to him by that time. 2.     The Court’s assessment 21.     On 21 March 2016 the Court requested the Government to inform it whether the sum of PLN 20,000 awarded to the applicant as compensation had been paid to him. At the same time, the Registry requested the applicant, by registered post, to inform the Court whether the compensation of PLN 5,000 awarded by the Łódź Court of Appeal and the compensation of PLN 15,000 awarded by the Supreme Court were paid to him. 22.     In his le tter of 4 April 2016 the applicant informed the Court that the above-mentioned compensation had been paid to him. On 18 April 2016 the Government confirmed that the sum of PLN 20,000 had been paid to the applicant. 23.     The Court reiterates that for an applicant to be able to claim to be a victim of a violation, within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention, he must not only have the status of victim at the time when the application is introduced, but such status must continue to exist at all stages of the proceedings. A decision or measure favorable to an applicant is not in principle sufficient to deprive him of his status as a “victim” unless the national authorities have acknowledged, either expressly or in substance, and then afforded redress for the breach of the Convention (see Amuur   v.   France , 25 June 1996, § 36, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996 ‑ III, and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 44, ECHR   1999 ‑ VI). 24.     The Court notes that after communication of the application to the respondent Government, the Supreme Court, in a judgment of 21 August 2013, acknowledged a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention in respect of the above complaints and compensated the applicant. 25.     The Court considers that the amount awarded to the applicant is sufficient to cover the breach found. In such circumstances, the Court is of the view that the applicant can no longer claim to be a “victim” of a violation of Articles 3 and 8 in relation to the above complaints and that the application must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Declares the application inadmissible.   Done in English and notified in writing on 12 July 2016.   Andrea Tamietti   Nona Tsotsoria Deputy Registrar   President