CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 juin 2024

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5FFF0A77 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:1pt } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .s68D1564D { width:34.89pt; display:inline-block } .sF9FB9744 { width:162.44pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; display:inline-block } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .sC25A64EC { height:77.3pt } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .s86FCE089 { height:76.65pt } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sBA32C63A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 18931/18 and 51339/19 Marcin URBANEK against Poland and Tomasz POLACZEK against Poland   The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4   June 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Ivana Jelić , President ,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Erik Wennerström , judges , and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by the applicants listed in the appended table (“the applicants”), on the various dates indicated therein; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Polish Government (“the Government”) represented by their Agent, Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated, decides as follows: SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE 1.     The applications concern the strip searches the applicants claimed to have undergone while imprisoned. Neither applicant was classified as a “dangerous detainee”. 2.     The applicant in application no. 18931/18 (“the first applicant”) alleged having been subjected to almost 200 strip searches in Siedlce Prison from 24   March to 9 April 2015, from 21 May to 28   September 2015, and from 5   November 2015 to 26 May 2017. 3.     On an unspecified date the first applicant sent a letter to the Siedlce Prison Governor (a copy of which has not been submitted to the Court). In response, the first applicant received a letter dated 29 January 2018 indicating the relevant domestic legal provisions regarding strip searches. 4.     On 11 February 2018 the first applicant sent another letter to the Prison Governor concerning the same issues. On 19 February 2018 the Prison Governor replied by providing more details concerning the legal basis for subjecting prisoners to searches. 5.     The applicant in application no. 51339/19 (“the second applicant”) alleged having been subjected to an undetermined number of strip searches in Herby Prison from 30 November 2017 to 21   March 2019. 6.     On 17 July 2019 the second applicant requested the Herby Prison Governor to provide him with copies of his strip searches reports. In the response, dated 5   August 2019, the Prison Governor informed him that no records had been kept. 7 .     On 14 August 2019 the second applicant sent unspecified letters to the Częstochowa Penitentiary Court (copies of which have not been submitted to the Court). In its response dated 26 August 2019 the court informed the second applicant that all matters related to his detention in Herby Prison had already been terminated. 8.     The applicants complained, under Article 8 of the Convention, that the alleged strip searches violated their right to respect for private life. Moreover, the first applicant complained, under Article 3 of the Convention, that the routine, arbitrary and unjustified strip searches constituted degrading treatment. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT 9.     Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. 10.     The Government objected that the applicants had failed to exhaust relevant domestic remedies. In particular, they noted that neither applicant had lodged any complaints concerning the relevant searches with the prison authorities or with the police. They further surmised that the letters sent by the applicants to the prison authorities constituted mere requests for information and not complaints aimed at having the legitimacy and well ‑ foundedness of the above searches reviewed. Finally, the Government noted that neither applicant initiated civil proceedings for compensation on account of the searches. The applicants contested the Government’s objection and maintained their complaints. 11.     As regards the letters sent by the second applicant to the penitentiary court (see paragraph 7 above), the Government admitted that they had contained complaints about detention but claimed that none of them concerned the strip searches referred to in the application under review. The second applicant, represented by a lawyer, failed to comment on the Government’s objection and did not present any evidence substantiating his complaints (notably, the copies of said letters). 12.     In these circumstances, the Court notes that, unlike the applicants in earlier similar cases (see, notably, Milka v. Poland , no. 14322/12, §§   41-50, 15   September 2015; Dejnek v. Poland, no. 9635/13, 1 June 2017; Nowak v.   Poland [Committee], no. 60906/16, 13 October 2022; and Bojar v.   Poland [Committee], no.   11148/18, 11 May 2023), the applicants in the case under examination have indeed failed to initiate any domestic proceedings in which their grievances could have been examined. Moreover, by failing to submit copies of their letters sent to the domestic authorities the applicants have failed to substantiate their complaints under the Convention and effectively precluded the Court from establishing the exact scope of the alleged interference with their rights. 13.     The Court concludes that the applicants did not do everything that could have been reasonably expected of them to exhaust domestic remedies ( D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, §   116, ECHR   2007-IV). The Government’s objection must therefore be allowed, and the applications must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Declares the applications inadmissible. Done in English and notified in writing on 27 June 2024.     Liv Tigerstedt   Ivana Jelić   Deputy Registrar   President   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by 1. 18931/18 Urbanek v. Poland 04/04/2018 Marcin URBANEK 1976 Oleśnica Polish Anna KRYSIAK-SCHECHINGER 2. 51339/19 Polaczek v. Poland 25/09/2019 Tomasz POLACZEK 1980 Strzelin Polish Aneta Barbara BEDYK