CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 décembre 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 } .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 } Published on 9 January 2023   FIRST SECTION Application no. 18931/18 Marcin URBANEK against Poland lodged on 4 April 2018 communicated on 15 December 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns strip searches the applicant had to undergo while detained in the Siedlce Prison from 24   March to 9 April 2015, from 21 May to 28 September 2015 and from 5 November 2015 to 26 May 2017. The applicant was not classified as a “dangerous detainee”. As confirmed by the authorities, he was searched before and after each transport outside of prison (on 27 occasions), during each transfer between cells and blocks (on 20 occasions) and after every received visit. He claims to have been subjected to almost 200 strip searches. The applicant’s complaints relating to the strip searches were dismissed by the prison governor. The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention that the routine, arbitrary and unjustified strip searches constituted degrading treatment and violated his right to respect for his private life.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Roth v. Germany , nos. 6780/18 and 30776/18, §§ 70-72, 22 October 2020)? Reference is made to the applicant’s allegations concerning the circumstances of the strip searches which were numerous, routine and carried out without any apparent justification.   2.     Do the relevant facts of the application give rise to a violation of the applicant’s right to his private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see Milka v. Poland , no. 14322/12, §§ 41-50, 15 September 2015, and Dejnek v.   Poland , no. 9635/13, §§ 70-77, 1 June 2017)?