CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 décembre 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8FA53EDF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FOURTH SECTION Application no. 39863/09 Robert JĄKALSKI against Poland lodged on 18 June 2009 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Robert Jąkalski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Brzeg. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was serving prison sentence in Gliwice Prison. On 23 December 2005 he was informed that his grandmother had died and that the funeral would take place on 27 December 2005 at 1 p.m. The applicant immediately informed about that fact the prison authorities. He also expressed his wish to attend the funeral ceremony. Subsequently, the penitentiary director ( kierownik penitencjarny ) suggested to the applicant that the funeral ceremony be postponed until 2 p.m. in order to facilitate the organisation of his transport to the funeral. He also instructed the applicant on the procedure that the applicant should initiate in order to be granted a compassionate leave. On 27 December 2005 at about 8 o’clock the applicant’s wife submitted to the Gliwice prison the death certificate and confirmation that the ceremony would start at 2 p.m. She also filed a request for leave to attend the funeral with the Gliwice Regional Court. At 10.59 a.m. the Gliwice prison received a fax from the court with the urgent request to prepare the applicant’s assessment as to prospects of the applicant’s rehabilitation. At 11.15 the only car that was available on that day was sent to Zabrze for purposes of supply for the penitentiary. At 11.22 the Gliwice prison received by fax an order issued by the Penitentiary Judge of the Gliwice Regional Court ( Sędzia Sądu Okręgowego Wydziału Penitencjarnego) . The judge granted the applicant the leave to attend the funeral under police escort. At 12.10 the prison authorities informed the court that the order could not have been executed due to lack of transport means. On 3 January 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Penitentiary Judge of the Gliwice Regional Court about non-enforcement of the order of 27 December 2005. In a letter dated 9 February 2007 the Director of the Gliwice Prison was informed by the judge that the applicant’s complaint was found manifestly ill-founded due to objective circumstances justifying the non-execution of the order. On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a claim against State Treasury seeking just satisfaction for not enabling him the participation in the funeral ceremony. On 19 March 2008 the Gliwice District Court dismissed his claim. The court found that the applicant failed to prove that he had suffered any damage resulting from non-participation in the funeral. It also stressed that the prison authorities could not be held liable for his non-attendance in the funeral. On 14 January 2009 the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. B.     Relevant domestic law Article 141a of the 1997 Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “1.     In cases which are of particular importance for a convicted person, he or she may be granted permission to leave prison for a period not exceeding five days, if   necessary under the escort of a prison officer or in the company of another trustworthy person ( osoba godna zaufania ).” COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about the refusal to allow him to attend his grandmother’s funeral. He submits that his grandmother was raising him and she had been his closest family. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the refusal to execute the Gliwice Regional Court decision of 27   December 2005 which resulted in the applicant’s non-attendance in funeral of his grandmother compatible with his right to respect for his family life guaranteed by Article   8 of the Convention?