CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sC6C7C49B { margin-left:7.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 18 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 3831/18 Piotr HRUSZKA against Poland lodged on 3 January 2018 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Piotr Hruszka, is a Polish national, who was born in 1974 and is detained in Sieradz. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. Since 2004 the applicant has been serving several prison sentences. At the time of the events in question he was detained in Piotrków Detention Centre. The accident On 21 November 2013 the applicant was transported by prison van from Piotrków Detention Centre to the District Prosecutor’s Office in Piotrków Trybunalski. He was placed in the secure rear compartment located in the back of the vehicle. The compartment was not equipped with seatbelts. The applicant was handcuffed and was sitting on one of the side benches. While the van was driving at low speed, another car drove into it. As a result of the accident the applicant suffered several injuries: a twisted acromioclavicular joint, neck injury and a head injury. He was transported to a hospital where he was examined and was put in a plaster cast. Subsequently, on the same day he was transported back to the detention centre. The applicant submits that he had a plaster cast for three months and during that period he had required help from his inmates. He also wore a cervical collar for a year. Civil proceedings On 25 August 2014 the applicant lodged a claim for damages against the State Treasury - Chief Police Commandant seeking 80,000   Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation for the injuries that he had suffered during the prison van accident. On 15 November 2016 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court dismissed the claim. The court was of the view that the State Treasury had not acted unlawfully. In the absence of unlawfulness no breach of personal rights could be found. The court held that the applicant was transported in a rear compartment of a special prison vehicle which was not equipped with seatbelts. According to the relevant regulations the obligation to wear seatbelts applied only to seats equipped with such belts. Thus the applicant was transported in a correct manner. Moreover, the accident was caused by a third person and the driver of the prison van had not been in any way responsible. On 28 September 2017 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal fully accepting the findings made by the first ‑ instance court and that court’s legal assessment of those findings. Relevant domestic and international material Domestic law At the material time the technical requirements of special vehicles were listed in the ordinance of Ministers of the Interior, National Defence, Finances and Justice of 17 October 2014. The ordinance did not require that special vehicles, including vehicles used to transport prisoners, be fitted with seat belts. Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) Between 28 March and 9 April 2019 a delegation of the CPT visited Greece. In paragraph 128 of the report CPT/Inf (2020)   15, it noted, in so far as relevant: “128.The CPT considers that transfers of prisoners should always be carried out in a humane, secure and safe manner... Prisoners should be transported in vehicles suitably designed and fit for that purpose, taking due account of all relevant safety requirements in order to protect prisoners. In particular, all vehicles which are used for the transfer of prisoners should be regularly maintained and equipped with appropriate safety devices such as safety belts...” The CPT recommended that the Greek authorities urgently reviewed the arrangements for transferring prisoners in Greece and ensured that all transfer vehicles were regularly maintained and equipped with safety belts, so as to guarantee the safety of prisoners during transfers. A delegation of the CPT carried out a visit to the Netherlands from 2 to 13   May 2016. In the relevant part of report CPT/Inf (2017) 1, it made the following remark: “29.     At Houten Police Detention Facility, the delegation examined vehicles used for the transport of detained persons... However, the delegation observed that the vehicles did not possess seat belts in the compartments for detained persons, which represents a safety hazard. The CPT recommends that this shortcoming be remedied.” A delegation of the CPT carried out a visit to the United Kingdom from 17 to 28 September 2012. In the relevant part of report CPT/Inf (2014) 11, it made the following remark: “88.     The transport of prisoners to and from courts and between prisons was carried out by a private contractor (G4S). The delegation observed that the vehicles used for transporting prisoners did not possess   seat belts in the cubicles, which represents a safety hazard...   The CPT invites the Scottish authorities to remedy these shortcomings .” A delegation of the CPT visited Slovenia from 16 to 27   September 2001. It noted the following in paragraph 95 of its report CPT/Inf (2002) 36: “95.     In the course of its visit, the delegation examined the vehicles used for prisoner transport. ... The compartment was not equipped with seatbelts, nor did it have any handles or railings which would prevent prisoners from losing their balance as the vehicle moved... The CPT recommends that the Slovenian authorities review current arrangements for the transport of prisoners, in the light of the above remarks.” COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he suffered inhuman and degrading treatment as his transport in a prison van not equipped with seat belts did not guarantee his safety. He submits that he suffered injuries during the accident and was not granted any compensation.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment due to the conditions of transport in a prison van, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention (compare Voicu v. Romania , no. 22015/10, §   63, 10   June 2014 and Engel v. Hungary , no. 46857/06, § 28, 20   May 2010)?   2.     Alternatively, did the conditions of the applicant’s transport in the prison van constitute a violation of Article 8 of the Convention?