CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 5 mai 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 } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 5   May 2017   Application no 31672/17 Artur MĘDRZYCKI against Poland lodged on 28 April 2017 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.     The applicant is a Polish national and was born in 1977. He is represented before the Court by Ms M. Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 2.     The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 3.     On 30   April 2003 the applicant was convicted by the Warsaw District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) for an unspecified offence and sentenced to four years of imprisonment. On an unspecified date the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) upheld this judgment. 4.     During the proceedings the applicant was banned from leaving Poland. The ban is still in force. A.     The applicant’s health problems 5.     In 2007 the applicant had severe headaches that led to the loss of consciousness. He was hospitalised in the Neurology Unit of the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology in Warsaw ( Instytut Psychiatrii i Neurologii ) and diagnosed with Weber’s syndrome. The applicant’s rehabilitation lasted until 2009. 6.     In 2011 he again experienced a series of neurological issues and, after losing consciousness, he was diagnosed in the Miedzyleski Specialistic Hospital in Warsaw ( Międzyleski Szpital Specjalistyczny ) with Weber’s syndrome caused by cerebral vasculitis and encephalitis. 7.     In April 2012 the applicant suffered from severe headaches, hand and face paresis and eyesight problems. He was admitted to the Military Medical Institute in Warsaw ( Wojskowy Instytut Medyczny ) and treated with steroids, with little effect. In May and July 2012 he was hospitalised in Neurology Unit of the Central Clinical Hospital of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration in Warsaw ( Centralny Szpital Kliniczny Ministerstwa Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji ). He was diagnosed with nervous system inflammation. He was experimentally treated with immunoglobulin drips and underwent rehabilitation, which was partially successful. 8.     In January 2013 the applicant lost consciousness again and was hospitalised in Military Medical Institute in Warsaw. He had hand and leg paresis and eyesight and speech problems. He left the hospital in a wheelchair. Due to his condition, he was granted a disability pension and has been declared to be fully unfit for work. In April 2013 his health deteriorated and he was admitted to the same hospital and diagnosed with mitochondrial myopathy. The applicant was again granted experimental treatment in form of immunoglobulin drips and rehabilitation. 9.     The applicant’s rehabilitation was cut short by another onset of hand and face paresis. The rehabilitation he received afterwards was not successful. 10.     In April 2015 the applicant was granted another experimental therapy (immunoglobulin drips and rehabilitation), which started in June 2015, when he was diagnosed with Miller – Fisher syndrome. The treatment was cut short in May 2016, when the applicant was ordered by the Warsaw District Court to undergo a psychiatric observation in a hospital and that court refused the applicant’s lawyer’s motion to change the time of observation. During the observation the applicant’s health deteriorated. The observation had to be stopped and the applicant was hospitalised. 11.     In January 2017 the applicant was included in another State funded therapy of six to eight immunoglobulin drips and rehabilitation that should last from twelve to eighteen months. Until 28   April 2017 he already received two drips. 12.     Additionally, the applicant suffers from HBV. 13.     As the travel ban is still in force, the applicant cannot seek treatment abroad. B.     The proceedings concerning the execution of the sentence 14.     In 2005 and 2007 the applicant’s placement in prison was postponed due to his poor state of health. 15.     On 30 April 2009 the execution proceedings were stayed for the same reason. 16.     However, in 2012 the expert declared that the applicant was able to serve the sentence. On 27   March 2012 the Warsaw District Court resumed the proceedings. 17.     On 15   July 2013 his lawyer lodged a motion for postponement of the execution of the sentence due to the health problems and asked for an expert opinion that would determine the possibility of placing the applicant in prison. She also requested that the execution proceeding be stayed due to the treatment he was receiving. 18.     During these proceedings the court ordered the experts’ opinions, but, in the applicant’s representative opinion, they were limited to the applicant’s mental health. Two copies of opinions had been provided: the first was made after examination of the applicant on 1   July 2015 and is titled “Forensic psychiatric opinion” ( opinia sądowo-psychiatryczna ) and the second is dated 11   August 2016 and is titled “Forensic psychiatric and psychologic opinion” ( opinia sądowo-psychiatryczno-psychologiczna ). In the course of proceedings an expert opinion of neurologist, forensic doctor and geneticist, dated 19   March 2015, was prepared. The experts did not diagnose the applicant with the Miller – Fisher syndrome or encephalitis and declared that his state of health allowed for his placement in prison. 19.     On 18   September 2014 the Warsaw District Court suspended the proceedings in another criminal case concerning the applicant because of his illness. 20.     On 7   October 2016 the Warsaw District Court refused to postpone the execution of the sentence and refused to stay the execution of the sentence. It also refused the applicant’s lawyer’s motion to obtain an expert opinion that would determine whether the applicant could be treated and rehabilitated in prison and whether the interruption of treatment would have serious consequences for him. The applicant and his lawyers appealed. 21.     On 2   January 2017 the Warsaw Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) upheld the challenged decision. 22.     On 16   February 2017 an arrest warrant for the applicant was issued and the execution proceedings were stayed because the applicant could not be located. 23.     On 22   March 2017 the Ombudsman informed the applicant’s lawyer that he decided to take interest in the applicant’s case. He asked several prisons about the possibility to provide the applicant with treatment in prison, but so far he has not received any replies. 24.     On 4   April 2017 the applicant’s doctor issued a certificate in which he stated that the prognosis for the applicant’s health was bad, he required highly specialised medical treatment and rehabilitation and the illness endangered his health and life. 25.     The applicant declares that he would serve the sentence “if he was provided with information about the real possibilities of continuing IVIG treatment at the hospital and rehabilitation”. He fears he could be arrested at any time, even in the hospital. 26.     According to the applicant’s representative, the national courts made decisions refusing to postpone the execution of the sentence having in view the fact that the applicant’s punishment is close to the term of prescription. C.     The costs of execution proceedings 27.     On 20   October 2016 the Warsaw District Court decided that the applicant had to bear costs of proceedings in the amount of 12,665.06 Polish zlotys (PLN). The applicant’s lawyer appealed, pointing out that the applicant received disability pension, did not work and had no property. 28.     On 2   January 2017 the Warsaw Regional Court upheld the challenged decision. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Articles 2 and 3 of the Convention that serving the sentence in his state of health would endanger his health and life. The treatment he receives can be obtained only in some hospitals and the national courts failed to establish whether such treatment may be continued in prison. 2.     Under Article 8 of the Convention he complains that the domestic courts failed to secure his future therapy in prison. 3.     Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention he complains that the costs of the domestic proceedings were exorbitant and disproportionate to his recent earning capacity. QUESTIONS 1.     Will the applicant, if imprisoned, receive necessary treatment, so that his deprivation of liberty is compatible with Article   3 of the Convention? Reference is made to the applicant’s state of health and necessity to receive continuous and highly specialised medical care. The Government are invited to inform the Court whether the applicant will be able to continue to benefit from necessary medical care in prison, especially from the treatment that he is currently receiving.   2.     Did the proceedings before the national courts, which ended with the Warsaw Regional Court’s decision of 2   January 2017, constitute an effective remedy, as required by Article   3 in conjunction with Article   13 of the Convention? Reference is made to the fact that the decision made on 7   October 2016 was based on experts’ opinion from March 2015, which had been prepared before the applicant was diagnosed with Miller – Fisher syndrome and before he commenced treatment, and that, despite the new evidence presented by the applicant’s lawyers, the national courts did not ask for an updated medical opinion.