CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 10 octobre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .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 } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .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 } .s2E1B62A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center }       FOURTH SECTION Application no. 29754/11 Tomasz PACHNICZ against Poland lodged on 15 March 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Tomasz Pachnicz, is a Polish national, who was born in 1969. He is currently serving his prison sentence in Wronki prison. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant has been detained from 2001 onwards in Gdańsk Remand Centre and Malbork Remand Centre, in particular: - from 14 February 2001 to 10 December 2002, from 15 March 2004 until 6 April 2004 and later on between 14 July and 23 December 2004 and between 24 May 2005 and 22 May 2006 in Gdańsk Remand Centre ( Areszt Śledczy w Gdańsku ); - between 7 April 2004 and 14 July 2004 in Malbork Prison ( Zakład Karny w Malborku ). According to the information he submitted by way of an official information note prepared by the Gdansk Remand Centre dated 15 July 2011, until June 2008 the applicant was systematically kept in cells where the number of detainees exceeded the number stipulated by the applicable regulations. The administration of the Malbork prison informed him, by a letter of 26   July 2006, that no similar information could be prepared in respect of his detention in that prison as the relevant documents had not been kept. He was informed that the surface of his cell was 10,80 square metres. The applicant submits that the conditions in both prisons were bad. The cells were badly overcrowded and the provisions guaranteeing 3 square metres per person were not respected. The cells were damp and moldy. Washbasins were not separated from the general cell space which did not provide for any privacy when washing. There was no warm water in the cells. Prisoners were allowed to have a shower only once a week. He further submitted that he often was humiliated by his co-prisoners whilst the prison administration chose not to intervene. On 16 May 2010 the applicant attempted to file a civil claim for compensation against the State Treasury for overcrowding and bad sanitary conditions in Gdańsk and Malbork Remand Centres. He also applied for exemption from paying the applicable court fees. He claimed PLN   100,000. On 4 October 2010 the Gdansk Regional Court partly allowed his request and exempted him from the obligation to pay the court fee over the amount of 500 PLN. The court pointed out that the full court fee to be paid in respect of his claim would amount to PLN 5,000. It noted that the applicant had been employed while detained between 2005 and 2008 and he should have made appropriate savings then, especially if he had been of the view that his personal rights had been infringed by overcrowding already from 2001 onwards. The court further relied on the fact that the applicant had an amount of 1,301 PLN on deposit of the Remand Centre to be paid to him after his release. The court concluded that he should be able to pay the court fee of PLN 500. The applicant appealed, submitting that apart from the PLN 1,301 which he could not use before his release, he had no financial means. On 25 October 2010 the court upheld its first instance decision. It essentially shared the contested decision and referred to the applicant’s income in the past: PLN 2,645 in 2005, PLN 1,955 in 2006, PLN   3,435 in 2007 and PLN 2,742 in 2008. On 29 December 2010 the court ordered that the applicant’s statement of claim should be returned to him. The applicant appealed, reiterating that he had no money. On 21 January 2011 the Gdansk Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 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) 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 throughout his detention he was held in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions. He further complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his right of access to court was breached as the court wrongly refused to allow his request for exemption from the court fee in its entirety. After years of detention he had no money and was thereby prevented from pursuing his civil claim necessary for the purposes of exhaustion of domestic remedies in respect of Article 3.     QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the conditions in the Gdańsk Remand Centre and Malbork Prison throughout the applicant’s imprisonment amount to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention?   2.     Was the applicant denied access to court contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the fact that the civil courts refused to grant the applicant a total exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee.