CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 juin 2017

.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 22 June 2017   FIRST SECTION Application no. 78851/16 Andrzej MICHALSKI against Poland lodged on 12 December 2016 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Andrzej Michalski, is a Polish national who was born in 1978 and is currently detained in Lublin Remand Centre. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. A.     The applicant’s health and medical treatment in prison The applicant was detained from 21 February 2008 until 3   February 2009, 8 October 2009 until 16 December 2010, 12 January until 9   March 2011, and 13 June 2012 until 14   September 2015. On 4 November 2015 he was committed to Lublin Remand Centre to serve his prison sentence. On 5 March 2008 the prison ophthalmologist diagnosed that the applicant had a piece of glass in the lower lid of his left eye, and recommended that the object be removed in hospital on an outpatient basis. On 10 and 11 March 2010 and on 22   November 2010 prison ophthalmologists examined the applicant and recommended that the foreign object be removed from his eye, although not as a matter of urgency. On 26   August 2013 the applicant’s vision was tested, as he had complained that it was deteriorating. On 25 January 2016 the applicant was examined by a prison ophthalmologist and a specialist at the public hospital in Lublin, because on 22 January he had complained that his left eye was aching. On 15   March, 14 April and 9   May 2016 the applicant underwent further check-ups and tests at the specialist public hospital in Lublin. The computed tomography (CT) examination of his left eye (of 14 April) revealed the shadow of a metallic object measuring 2 mm under the lower lid of his left eye. It appears that on an unspecified date between 6   June and 13   September 2016 the object was removed from the applicant’s eye. B.     Appeal lodged with prison authorities On 22 January 2016 the applicant complained to the administration of the Lublin Remand Centre that it had taken approximately eight years to ensure the removal of the foreign object from his eye. On 4 May 2016 the remand centre’s governor considered that the applicant’s complaint was justified. It was nevertheless observed that, prior to lodging his complaint, the applicant had not developed any ailments related to the presence of the foreign object in his eye or voiced any grievances in this respect. C.     Civil action On 6 June 2016 the applicant attempted to file a civil action for compensation against the State Treasury for his alleged physical and psychological suffering caused by the failure of the Lublin Remand Centre to ensure the removal of the foreign object from his eye. He claimed 100,000 Polish zlotys (PLN), and applied for an exemption from the obligatory court fee due for lodging the action. On 25 July 2016 the Lublin Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) refused to exempt the applicant from the obligation to pay the court fee, which was calculated at PLN 5,000 (approximately 1,200 euros (EUR)), the amount corresponding to the statutory 5 % of the value of the claim. The domestic court made the following observations to justify its decision. (i)     A plaintiff wishing to claim a high amount of compensation should save the money necessary to pursue the case. (ii)     Only if such savings turned out to be insufficient could a plaintiff seek aid from the State. (iii)     Court expenses should take priority over any other type of expenses. (iv)     Court expenses were reimbursable in the event of a favourable outcome in the case. (v)     Asking for a full court fees exemption, taking into account the fact that the applicant occasionally received money transfers to his prison account, showed his unwillingness to gather any means whatsoever to pursue his civil case. The applicant appealed, submitting that he had been deprived of his liberty for almost ten years, and that the money which he had received during that time by means of bank transfers had been of an insignificant amount. He further stated that he had no financial means at his disposal, and that his health made it impossible for him to secure employment in prison. On 1 September 2016 the Lublin Regional Court upheld its first-instance decision, observing that it had correctly assessed the applicant’s personal and financial situation, and reiterating that the applicant should have saved money to be able to pursue his civil action. On 6 September 2016 the Lublin Regional Court ordered the applicant to pay the 5,000 PLN court fee within seven days, otherwise his statement of claim would be returned unexamined. The applicant did not make the payment. It appears that, on an unknown date, the Lublin Regional Court ordered that the applicant’s statement of claim be returned to him, which meant that his action was of no legal effect and that the relevant proceedings were, for all legal and practical purposes, regarded as having never been brought before the court. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that it took eight years for the prison authorities to ensure the removal of the foreign object from his eye. He also complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the refusal to exempt him from the court fees required to pursue his civil action amounted to a disproportionate restriction on his access to a court.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the applicant exhaust domestic remedies?   2.     Having regard to the fact that it took approximately eight years for the prison authorities to ensure the removal of a foreign object from the applicant’s eye, was he subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention?   3.     Having regard to the domestic court’s refusal to grant the applicant a court fee exemption, was the applicant denied access to a court, contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?