CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 17 avril 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 151 April 2012 Piechowicz v. Poland - 20071/07 Judgment 17.4.2012 [Section IV] Article 3 Degrading treatment Inhuman treatment Prolonged imposition of “dangerous detainee” regime: violation   Facts – In October 2007 the applicant, who faced charges of drug-trafficking and leadership of a criminal organisation, was classified as a “dangerous detainee” and placed in a cell all parts of which including the sanitary facilities were constantly monitored via closed-circuit television. He was subjected to a body search every time he left and entered the cell, which in practice meant that he had to strip naked in front of prison guards, who would also perform an anal inspection. Whenever he was outside the cell, he was supervised by two prison guards and made to wear joined shackles on his hands and feet. On several occasions another inmate was placed in his cell for brief periods of time. Visits from his family members were also restricted and his correspondence was monitored. The decision to classify the applicant as a “dangerous detainee” was reviewed at three monthly intervals and consistently upheld on account of the nature of the charges. He was released in July 2010. Law – Article 3 ( substantive aspect ): Although the applicant was never convicted of any violent crime, he was convicted of a number of serious crimes, including belonging to an organised criminal group, and his initial placement in the “N” regime could be considered legitimate. However, the Court could not accept that the continued, routine and indiscriminate application of the full range of measures that the authorities were obliged to apply under that regime for two years and nine months had been necessary for maintaining prison security. The applicant was subjected to only limited social isolation, since he shared his cell at times, maintained daily contact with the prison staff, was entitled to receive family visits, and had access to television and the prison library. However, the authorities had failed to provide “N” ward inmates with appropriate stimulation and adequate human contact. They denied the applicant’s requests to take part in the training, workshops, courses and sports activities organised for ordinary inmates and refused to allow him to have his own sports equipment, computer games or a CD player in his cell. In addition, the negative psychological and emotional effects of his social isolation were further aggravated by the routine application of other special security measures, in particular the shackling and strip searches. The Court was not convinced that systematic shackling every time the applicant left his cell had been necessary. Likewise, the strip-searches involving an anal inspection were carried out routinely and were not linked to any concrete security needs or specific suspicions and notwithstanding the other security measures the applicant was constantly subject to such as supervision via CCTV and prison guards. Even though strip-searches might be necessary on occasion to ensure prison security or to prevent disorder or crime, the Court was not persuaded that such systematic, intrusive and exceptionally embarrassing checks performed on the applicant daily, or even several times a day, had been necessary to ensure safety in prison. Lastly, while the gravity of the applicant’s alleged crimes could justify his initial classification as a “dangerous detainee” and the imposition of the “N” regime, it could not serve as the sole justification for its prolonged continuation. Given the cumulative effects on the applicant of the strict prison regime that had been imposed, the Court found that its duration and the measures taken had exceeded the requirement of prison security and had not been necessary. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). The Court also found violations of Article 5 §   3 (length of pre-trial detention), Article 5 §   4 (lack of equality of arms) and Article   8 (restriction on the applicant’s contact with his family and censorship of his correspondence). Article 41: EUR 18,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes