CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 septembre 2016

.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 } .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 } .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 } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 21 September 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 59038/11 Piotr KUDRAŃSKI against Poland lodged on 5 September 2011 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Piotr Kudrański, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and is serving a prison sentence in Tarnów. 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 serving a prison sentence in Tarnów Prison. On 2   July 2009 he asked the director of the prison if he could be served meat ‑ free meals on account of his religious dietary requirements. He stated that he was a vegetarian. On 3 July 2009 the director refused his request. The applicant complained to the Cracow regional prisons inspector ( Okręgowy Inspektorat Służby Więziennej ) regarding that decision. On 20 August 2009 the inspector replied that his complaint was unfounded. He stressed that, under Article 109 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences, prisoners should receive meals taking into consideration their religious and cultural beliefs only where possible. The prison authorities were not able to prepare vegetarian meals for only one prisoner. Furthermore, there were no medical grounds to provide the applicant with any special diet. Lastly, the inspector stated that the applicant was entitled to buy any food products from the prison shop. On 31 August 2009 the applicant brought a civil action against the State Treasury statio fisci Tarnów Prison for compensation for a violation of his personal rights as a result of the authorities’ failure to provide food in conformity with his religious beliefs. On 26 November 2009, during a hearing held before the Tarnów Regional Court, the applicant stated that he had refused to eat meat due to his moral beliefs, which were not religiously motivated. On 20 January 2010 the Tarnów Regional Court gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant failed to ask to be served with the written reasoning for that judgment. On 22 February 2010 he lodged an appeal against that judgment. On 1 March 2010 the Tarnów Regional Court rejected the applicant’s appeal for procedural reasons: it had been lodged out of time. The applicant’s subsequent interlocutory appeals were unsuccessful. On 1 December 2010 the Tarnów Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s application to lodge an appeal out of time, and rejected his appeal against the judgment of 20 January 2010. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice is set out in the case of Jakóbski v. Poland , no. 18429/06, §§ 24, 25, 7 December 2010. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 9 that he was not provided with a vegetarian diet during his detention in Tarnów Prison.   QUESTION Did the State’s alleged failure to provide the applicant with special food in conformity with his faith constitute an “interference” with the applicant’s freedom of religion within the meaning of Article 9 of the Convention, or does it constitute a breach of its positive obligations under this provision (see Jakóbski v. Poland , no. 18429/06, 7   December 2010, and Vartic v.   Romania (no.   2) , no. 14150/08, 17 December 2013)?