CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 28 novembre 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD6E2332A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIRST SECTION Application no. 55446/09 Krzysztof WOJCIECHOWSKI against Norway lodged on 12 October 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS   1.     The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Wojciechowski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1978. He is represented before the Court by Mr F. Verling, a lawyer practising in Bergen. The circumstances of the case 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 29 April 2009, at 13h55, the applicant was arrested and placed in Bergen Police Headquarters. Since the police officers refused to inform his family about his arrest, he went on a hunger strike. On 1 May 2009 he felt unwell and asked the police officers for a doctor, to which they had replied that they were busy and would do it later. When he was brought before a judge on 2 May 2009, the applicant complained to the judge about not being allowed to see a doctor. The judge informed him (orally) about his right to see a doctor and assured him that he would be examined by a doctor on his return to the detention centre. However, he was not examined by a doctor for the whole period that he was detained at the Police Headquarters in Bergen. 4.     On 2 May 2009 the Bergen City Court ordered the applicant to be held in pre-trial detention for four weeks on the ground of reasonable suspicion of his having committed an offence that was liable to imprisonment for more than six months and that there was a real danger of the applicant absconding making such detention necessary. On the assumption that the applicant received necessary medical assistance in the prison, his detention for eight weeks until the opening of the trial hearing would not be disproportionate. 5.     The applicant was transferred from the police cell at the Bergen Police Headquarters to detention at Bergen prison on 5 May 2009, at 9h05. 6.     On 29 May 2009 the City Court prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention until 19 June 2009. 7.     After holding a hearing on the latter date, the City Court by a judgment of 24 June 2009 convicted the applicant on charges of unlawful deprivation of liberty (Article 223 of the Penal Code) and indecent behaviour (Article 201) committed against a woman and also of shop lifting (Article 257). It sentenced him to eight months’ imprisonment. On 18   August 2009 the City Court convicted him of another sexual offence (Article 200) and sentenced him to forty-five days’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed to the Gulating High Court. 8.     When the City Court, on 15 September 2009, prolonged the applicant’s provisional detention pending the High Court hearing, the applicant complained that he had not been offered necessary medical assistance and that the police had not informed his family about his arrest. The City Court set as a condition that necessary medical assistance would be offered. 9.     The High Court upheld the applicant’s conviction and the combined sentence of nine months and fifteen days’ imprisonment by a judgment of 21 October 2009. No particulars have been submitted on whether a further appeal was lodged with the Supreme Court. COMPLAINTS 10.     Without invoking any specific provisions of the Convention the applicant complained about poor conditions of his detention at the Bergen Police Headquarters, which had lasted for “5 days, 19 hours and 10   minutes”: the police custody cell had been located in the basement of the police premises, it had had no windows, no possibilities for proper aeration, no toilet, no access to help at the times when such was needed, no possibilities for visits, no possibilities for smoking, no bed, only a mattress on the floor without pillow and bedcover, poor lightening (dual-mode (night/day) artificial lighting). Only as from the second day had exercise been accorded but then just for five minutes. During this period he had been wearing the same clothes. Furthermore, he had been denied access to a doctor. Also, his family had not been informed about his arrest. Finally, he complained about the length of the appellate proceedings.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AND REQUESTS   1.     Has the applicant exhausted domestic remedies with respect to his detention in police custody?   2.     Did his detention in the police cell in question amount to inhuman treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Did the applicant dispose of an effective remedy against his detention in the police cell?   4.     The Government are invited to provide a comprehensive survey of any remedies available under Norwegian law to a detainee held in a police establishment.   5.     The Government are further requested to submit a copy of the relevant arrest journals pertaining to the applicant.