CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 septembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       FOURTH SECTION Application no. 42421/11 Piotr JABŁOŃSKI against Poland lodged on 6 June 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Piotr Jabłoński, is a Polish national, who was born in 1958 and is currently detained in Koronowo Prison. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1. The period of the applicant’s detention From 29 May 2005 to 4 April 2006 and from 28 May 2008 to 9 February 2009 the applicant was detained in Bydgoszcz Remand Centre. 2. The conditions of the applicant’s detention The applicant submitted that during his detention in the above-mentioned facility he had been held in cells in which the floor space per person had been less than the statutory minimum standard of 3 m 2 . As established by the domestic court in the course of the civil proceedings against the State Treasury (see below) the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells in Bydgoszcz Remand Centre between 30   August 2005 and 20 March 2006 and between 30 May 2008 and 9   February 2009 (one year and three months). The applicant further submitted that the cells had been dirty and infested with insects and rats and that there had been no access to fresh air. The applicant claimed that he had been detained with a person infested with body lice. As a consequence he was subjected to quarantine and he lost many of his own clothes. He further claimed that he had been infected with a skin condition ( świerzb ). The applicant also complained that he had not been informed that one of his fellow cellmates was HIV and HCV-positive. He acquired information to that effect only after he had sustained minor injuries in a fight with the inmate in question and was being examined by a prison doctor. The applicant was at that time tested for HIV and found to be HIV-negative. 3. Civil proceedings for infringement of personal rights On an unspecified date in 2009 the applicant brought a civil action against the State Treasury and Bydgoszcz Remand Centre seeking 135,000   Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately EUR 33,750) in compensation for suffering which he had allegedly experienced due to the overcrowding, poor sanitary conditions and being exposed to a risk of contracting various infections in the above mentioned facility. On 27 May 2011 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) partly allowed the applicant’s claim and awarded him PLN 500 (approximately EUR 125) in compensation for violation of the applicant’s personal rights in that he had been detained in overcrowded, insanitary, insect and rat infested cells in Bydgoszcz Remand Centre for the period of fourteen months. In the regional court’s view, the applicant successfully demonstrated that he had been serving his prison sentence in conditions infringing his personal rights and dignity. The administration of the remand centre placed the applicant in such conditions for period of fourteen months contrary to Article 448 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences ( Kodeks karny wykonawczy ). Although the respondent party did, at the relevant time, inform a penitentiary judge about placing prisoners in overcrowded cells, it failed to demonstrate that such practice was exceptional and, thus, in compliance with the regulations. Moreover, the conditions in which the applicant was detained could not be in any way mitigated since all additional rooms in the facility, like a gymnasium or a day room, were also used to house prisoners. The domestic court dismissed the applicant’s complaints regarding his detention with inmates with various medical conditions. The practice of mixing healthy detainees with those infected with HIV or HCV was not contrary to the law. Moreover, the law did not require prisoners’ consent to be housed with ill convicts. The regional court found it significant that the prison administration had provided the applicant with adequate medical attention and information after he had been involved in the fight with the HIV and HCV-positive inmate. The applicant lodged an appeal against the dismissal of the part of his complaint which concerned his detention with prisoners with infectious diseases. On 3 November 2011 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal. It appears that the applicant complied with all the procedural requirements. Nevertheless, the appellate court found that the applicant had contested that part of the sentence which had been omitted (by no error on the part of the applicant) by the Bydgoszcz Regional Court in a conclusion of its judgment ( sentencja wyroku ) (‘... nie ma przedmiotu zaskarżenia, tj. nie ma tej części orzeczenia, od której powód wniósł apelację, a zatem apelacja jest niedopuszczalna’ ). The applicant did not lodge an interlocutory appeal against the above ‑ mentioned decision of 3 November 2011. The first-instance judgment became final. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice governing 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) and Norbert Sikorski   v.   Poland (no.   17599/05) adopted on 22 October 2009 (see §§   75 ‑ 85 and §§   45 ‑ 88   respectively). More recent developments are described in the Court’s decision in the case of Łatak v. Poland (no.   52070/08) adopted on 12   October 2010 (see §§ 25-54). COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was detained in overcrowded, insanitary and insect-infested cells in Bydgoszcz Remand Centre. He further complains about being detained with prisoners with various contagious medical conditions.