CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 juillet 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .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 } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s90DE0B2B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sBB355983 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 7 July 2014   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 653/12 Dariusz KARYKOWSKI against Poland lodged on 27 December 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Dariusz Karykowski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1966 and is currently detained in the Stargard Szczeciński Prison. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant The applicant is a habitual offender. On an unspecified date the applicant was arrested on suspicion of uttering threats. The applicant was subsequently convicted as charged. He   was detained in the Nowogard Prison and then in the Goleniów Prison. 2.     Imposition of the so-called “dangerous detainee” regime On 7 September 2011 the applicant’s cell was searched. During the search the prison officers found a note – entitled “protest letter” signed by 135 prisoners. The prisoners opposed the forthcoming changes in the criminal execution code concerning, in particular, possibility of shopping during prison visits. The letter was confiscated by the authorities. On 8 September 2011, the Nowogard Prison Penitentiary Commission imposed on the applicant the so-called “dangerous detainee” regime. The   commission held that the applicant was one of the organisers of the collective remonstrance in the Nowogard Prison. For these reasons it was necessary to place him in a solitary cell. The applicant appealed against this decision. He submitted that he was not the organiser of the protest but merely one of 140 prisoners who had signed the letter. On 29 November 2011 the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court held that the decision had been lawful. On an unknown date the applicant was transferred to the Goleniów Prison. On 6 December 2011 the Goleniów Prison Penitentiary Commission extended the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime. The   commission held that the applicant created serious threat to the community and should be kept in a solitary cell. The applicant appealed. On 31 January the Szczecin Regional Court quashed the decision and remitted the case to the commission. The court held that several months have elapsed since the applicant signed the protest letter and the assumptions regarding the prisoners’ collective remonstrance had been not confirmed. On 14 February 2012 the Goleniów Penitentiary Commission lifted the “dangerous detainee” regime off of the applicant. In total, the regime was imposed on the applicant for 2 years 2 months and 6 days. 3.     Particular aspect of the regime The applicant, whenever he was outside his cell wore the so-called “joined shackles” ( kajdanki zespolone ) on his hands and feet. Those shackles consisted of handcuffs and fetters joined together with chains B.     Relevant domestic law and practice 1.     General rules The relevant provisions relating to the imposition of the dangerous detainee status as regards detained on remand is set out in the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (“the Code”). Articles 212a and 212b of the Code regulate the main features of the status of such detainees which read, in so far as relevant, as follows: Article 212 a “1. The penitentiary commission shall classify a detainee as posing a serious danger to society or to the security of a remand centre. It shall review its decisions on that matter at least once every three months. The authority at whose disposal a detainee remains and a penitentiary judge shall be informed of decisions taken. 2. A detainee, referred to in paragraph 1, shall be placed in a designated remand centre’s ward or in a cell in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre. A penitentiary judge shall be informed about this placement. 3. A detainee who is suspected of committing an offence within an organised criminal group or organisation aimed at committing offences shall be placed in a   remand centre in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre, unless particular circumstances militate against such placement. 4. The provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be applied to the detainee whose characteristics, personal circumstances, his/her behaviour while being detained in a   remand centre or the degree of depravity pose a serious danger to society or to the security of a remand centre, and who: (...) 2) during the prior or current imprisonment posed a danger to the security of a   prison or a remand centre in this way that: a) was the leader or an active participant in a collective remonstrance in a prison or a   remand centre,   (...)”.   Article 212 b “1. In a remand centre a detainee referred to in Article 212a shall be kept in the following conditions: 1) cells and places designated for work, study, walks, visits, religious services, religious meetings and religious classes, as well as cultural and educational activities, physical exercise and sports, shall be equipped with adequate technical and protective security systems; 2) cells shall be controlled more often than those in which detainees [not classified as “dangerous”] are kept; 3) a detainee may study, work, participate directly in religious services, religious meetings and classes, and participate in cultural and educational activities, exercise and do sports only in the ward in which he/she is kept; 4) a detainee’s movement within a remand centre shall be under increased supervision and shall be restricted to what is strictly necessary; 5) a detainee shall be subjected to a personal check (kontrola osobista) each time he/she leaves and enters his/her cell; 6) a detainee’s walk shall take place in designated areas and under increased supervision; ... 8) visits shall take place in designated areas and under increased supervision. While having visits which prevent direct contact with visitors (open visits), the detainee is not allowed to consume groceries. ...; 9) a detainee may not use his/her own clothes or footwear”.   Articles 88 §3, 88a and 88b of the Code contain the same rules in respect of convicted persons. 2.     Monitoring and personal check The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the monitoring of “dangerous detainees” and personal check are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 110-117, 17 April 2012), and Horych v. Poland (no 13621/08, §§ 49–56, 17   April   2012). COMPLAINT The applicant complains without invoking any provisions of the Convention that the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on him amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant from 8 September 2011 to 14   February   2012, has he been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention? The parties are requested to refer in their observations to the leading judgment of Piechowicz v. Poland , no. 20071/07, 17 April 2012.   The Government are invited to submit a copy of the relevant decision imposing the dangerous detainee regime on the applicant and further decisions extending the application of the regime until the applicant’s release.