CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 décembre 2015

.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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; 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 } .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 }     Communicated on 11 December 2015   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 38601/12 Arkadiusz TUROWSKI against Poland lodged on 4 June 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Arkadiusz Turowski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1975 and is currently imprisoned in Nowogard Prison. A.     The circumstances of the case Between September 2010 and June 2012 the applicant was employed as a convicted person while serving his sentence of imprisonment in the Nowogard Prison. For his work he received a wage from which various deductions were made. Apart from the mandatory deductions applying to all employees (social insurance and taxes), part of the applicant’s wage was accumulated on so called “iron saving box”. Furthermore, between September 2010 and February 2011 20% of his wage was deducted for Post-Penitentiary Aid Fund (Fundusz Pomocy Postpenitencjarnej). As of 8 March 2011 the deduction for the latter Fund was decreased from 20 % to 10 % and further 25% of the wage was deducted for the Fund aiming at professional motivation of convicted persons and development of enterprises within prisons ( Fundusz Aktywizacji Zawodowej Skazanych oraz Rozwoju Przywięziennych Zakładów Pracy ). B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Article 123 (2) of the 1997 Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (the 1997 Code, Kodeks Karny Wykonawczy ), in its version which had been in force between 1   September 2003 and 8 March 2011, stated that the remuneration of a convicted person employed full-time should be not less than half of a minimum wage in Poland. The persons employed for less than full-time would have their income calculated proportionally to the number of hours worked, taking at least half of the minimum wage as a base. On 8 March 2011 the amendment to the 1997 Code entered into force (Law of 3 February 2011). The new Article 123 (2) stipulates that the convicted persons shall receive at least minimum statutory wage. The same Law amended Article 125 of the 1997 Code introducing a new deduction of 25% of the salary of the convicted person for a Fund aiming at professional motivation of convicted persons and development of enterprises within prisons ( Fundusz Aktywizacji Zawodowej Skazanych oraz Rozwoju Przywięziennych Zakładów Pracy ). Since 8 March 2011 this deduction adds to the existing one for Post-Penitentiary Aid Fund ( Fundusz Pomocy Postpenitencjarnej ). The deduction for the latter Fund was decreased from 20 % prior to 8 March 2011 to 10 % after that date. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that during the time of his employment he was receiving only part of his remuneration because 35% of his wages was deducted for various funds.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, should the constitutional complaint and the complaint with the Regional Inspectorate of Prison Service be considered as an effective remedy within the meaning of this provision?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicant’s peaceful enjoyment of possessions, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   Has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, in accordance with the conditions provided for by law and in accordance with the principles of international law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?