CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 octobre 2022

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } Published on 14 November 2022   FIRST SECTION Application no. 24676/18 H.A. against Poland lodged on 14 May 2018 communicated on 25 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns conditions of detention in the National Centre for the Prevention of Dissocial Behaviour in Gostynin (“the Centre” or “the Gostynin Centre”). In the past the applicant was convicted multiple times of various offences, including attempted murder. He had remained incarcerated, with short breaks, since 1979. His prison term was due to come to an end in 2017. At the end of his imprisonment, he was diagnosed with a personality disorder. Subsequently, the Director of Sztum Prison requested the Gdańsk Regional Court to declare the applicant a person representing a threat ( osoba stwarzająca zagrożenie ) within the meaning of the Act of 22   November 2013 on the Procedure regarding mentally disturbed persons representing a threat to life, health or sexual freedom of others (“the 2013   Act”) and to order his detention at the Gostynin Centre. On 6 February 2017 the Gdańsk Regional Court held that the was a person representing a threat and subjected him to preventive supervision as regulated by the 2013 Act. On 14 March 2017 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal amended the first-instance judgment and decided to place the applicant at the Gostynin Centre. On 12 December 2017 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. The applicant has been detained in the Gostynin Centre since 31 March 2017. The experts of the Centre prepare periodic reports on the applicant’s progress in therapy. Two periodic reports of 27 March 2020 and 26   September 2020 indicated that the applicant’s state did not necessitate his further detention at the Centre. Proceedings concerning the applicant’s release were initiated before the Płock Regional Court. On 29 January 2021 the court experts concurred with the view of the experts of the Centre. Since the Centre had been established, various reports were produced on conditions in that facility, including, the reports on the Ombudsman’s visits carried out on 26 June 2017 and 2 July 2018; the reports on the visits by the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture carried out from 18 to 20   February 2019 and from 8 to 10 March 2021; and the findings made in the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Poland carried out from 11 to 22 May 2017. Pursuant to the regulation of the Minister of Health of 16 January 2014 the capacity of the Centre was sixty patients but, according to the above-mentioned reports, the Centre quickly exceeded this number and in April 2021 there were ninety-three persons detained there. The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the communication report in the case of W v. Poland , no. 43562/17, published on HUDOC on 7   February 2022. The applicant claims that he is detained in inhumane and degrading conditions, in particular on account of overcrowding, inadequate sanitary conditions, limited outdoor exercises, lack of social activities, scarce possibilities for contact with the outside world, constant presence of guards equipped with special means of coercion such as truncheons, handcuffs and pepper sprays, and obligation to wear handcuffs when leaving the Centre. He submits that the Centre falls short of requirement for a   therapeutic establishment. In his letters of 26 May 2020, 25 October 2020 and 8 March 2021 the applicant, with reference to the expert opinions of 27 March 2020, 25   September 2020 and 29 January 2021, questioned the necessity of his continuing detention and the length of the proceedings concerning his release. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Article 3 1.     Did the material conditions of the applicant’ s detention at the Gostynin Centre, in particular the personal space available, general overcrowding and the constant presence of the guards, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment? Reference is made to: (1) the reports on the Ombudsman’ s visits carried out on 26   June 2017 and 2   July 2018; (2)   the reports on the visits by the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture carried out from 18 to 20   February 2019 and from 8 to 10   March 2021; and (3) the findings made in the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Poland carried out from 11 to 22   May 2017. 2.     Having regard to the conditions prevailing at the Gostynin Centre, was it possible for the applicant to properly follow the therapeutic treatment offered in that facility? In the negative, did that situation amount to inhuman or degrading treatment (see   Rooman v.   Belgium [GC], no.   18052/11, §§   141 ‑ 148, 31   January 2019)?   Article 5 §   1 (e) 1.     Having regard to the conditions prevailing at the Gostynin Centre and the purpose of his detention, was the applicant’s detention “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 §   1 (e) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ensured a proper therapeutic environment at the Gostynin Centre as required by Article 5 §   1 (e) of the Convention (see Rooman v.   Belgium [GC], no.   18052/11, §§   205-211, 31   January 2019)? Reference is made to the reports mentioned in question 1 above. 2.     Has the applicant’s continuing detention been justified under Article   5 §   1 (e) of the Convention following the issuance of a periodic report on his mental health dated 27 March 2020 and subsequent expert reports (see Ilnseher v. Germany [GC], nos. 10211/12 and   27505/14, §   127, 4 December 2018)?   Article 5 § 4 1.     Did the length of the proceedings initiated after the 27 March 2020 periodic report, relating to the necessity of the applicant’s continuing detention comply with the requirement of “speediness” laid down in Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?