CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 mai 2024
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-234436
- Date
- 21 mai 2024
- Publication
- 21 mai 2024
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.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 } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sD8E76205 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt } .s598389F9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:12pt } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Published on 10 June 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 33296/20 Bartłomiej BOJAR against Poland and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 21 May 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is a prisoner, serving a 25-years’ imprisonment sentence since 2002 and working in an outside facility since 2014. The applications concern 20 strip searches he had to undergo while detained in the Strzelce Opolskie Prison no. 1, between 31 October 2019 and 13 June 2023. The applicant complains that the searches were carried out without valid justification after received visits, after coming back from work and during general prison controls. Application no. 33296/20 concerns fifteen strip searches carried out between 31 October 2019 and 21 May 2020. The applicant’s complaints lodged on (i) 5 December 2019 (concerning five searches), (ii) 13   January 2020 (three searches) and (iii) 29 May 2020 (seven searches) were dismissed by the Prison Governor on (i) 23 December 2019, (ii) 31   January 2020, and (iii) 8 June 2020, respectively. The applicant appealed against the first two dismissals, but the Opole Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service dismissed them on 24 February and 17 March 2020, respectively. Application no. 4624/21 concerns four strip searches carried out between 15   June 2020 and 6 October 2020. The applicant’s complaint of 27   October 2020 was dismissed by the Prison Governor on 30 October 2020 and the subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Opole Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service on 17   December 2020. Application no. 40068/23 concerns one strip search carried out on 13   June 2023. The applicant’s complaint lodged with the Opole Penitentiary Court was dismissed on 28   June 2023. The applicant complains, under Article 8 of the Convention, that the strip searches violated his right to respect for his private life. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Do the relevant facts of the applications 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; compare also Bojar v.   Poland [Committee], no.   11148/18, §§ 8-18, 11 May 2023)? 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.       APPENDIX No. Application no. Lodged on Case name Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality 1. 33296/20 24/07/2020 Bojar v. Poland   Bartłomiej BOJAR 1973 Strzelce Opolskie Polish 2. 4624/21 29/12/2020 3. 40068/23 23/10/2023        Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 21 mai 2024
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-234436
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel