5.  The applicant was born in 1989 and is detained in Opole Lubelskie. 6.  On 29 June 2007 the applicant was arrested and remanded in custody in the Biała Podlaska Prison on suspicion of having committed a murder. He had a criminal record and had previously been detained. 7.  On 17 December 2009 he was convicted of a murder and sentenced to 25 years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed. 8.  On 10 November 2010 the Lublin Court of Appeal quashed the challenged judgment and remitted the case. 9.  On 13 May 2014 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment. 10.  On 14 August 2007 the Biala Podlaska Prison Penitentiary Commission classified the applicant as a dangerous detainee. It relied on the applicant’s attempted escape while being transported outside the prison and on the serious nature of the offence he had been charged with. 11.  On an unspecified day in September 2007, the applicant was transferred to the Lublin Remand Centre. On 3 October 2007 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission also imposed the dangerous detainee regime on the applicant. Subsequently, the commission extended the application of the dangerous detainee regime to the applicant on numerous occasions. The applicant submitted copies of the decisions of the commission dated: 6 May 2008, 19 March 2009, 12 August and 23 December 2010, 23 March, 23 June and 14 July 2011 and 15 March 2012. All these decisions were issued on a special form containing space for reasoning. However, these forms only refer to the applicant’s progress in rehabilitation, classifying it as “moderate” or “negative”. 12.  On an unspecified date the applicant was transferred to the Kielce Remand Centre. 13.  On 30 March 2010 the Kielce Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission also imposed the dangerous detainee regime on the applicant. The applicant appealed. 14.  On 28 June 2010 the Kielce Regional Court upheld the decision. It first noted that it was capable of examining whether the commission had remained within the limits of reasonableness and the limits of free assessment of circumstances of the case. It further held that the decision had been issued in accordance with the law and that it had been justified taking into account the applicant’s aggressive and vulgar behaviour in the remand centre, his refusing meals and his unrepentent attitude towards the offences of which he had been convicted by the first-instance court. The court also found that the applicant had received disciplinary penalties on 22 occasions for establishing illegal contacts. 15.  On an unspecified date in 2010 the applicant was transferred back to the Lublin Remand Centre. 16.  On 31 August 2010 he complained about the conditions of his detention and the further extension of his classification as a dangerous detainee to the regional inspector of the Prison Service. 17.  On 2 November 2010 the inspector, relying on the applicant’s attempted escape while being transported, found the complaint ill-founded. He also referred to the applicant’s self-mutilation on 17 June 2010 and found that on 18 June 2010 he had been examined by a psychologist who had not found any obstacles to placing the applicant in solitary confinement as a disciplinary penalty. 18.  The applicant appealed against the decisions of 23 December 2010 and 23 March 2011. In his appeal against the former decision the applicant claimed, in particular, that the commission had arbitrarily classified him as “dangerous”, that he had no access to the opinions and the prison authorities’ request leading to this classification, and he had been debased and humiliated by “[being] consciously kept ... in inhuman conditions”. 19.  On 28 February 2011 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the applicant’s classification had been justified in view of the fact that on 14 August 2007 he had unlawfully tried to escape while being transported. The court further referred to the fact that the applicant had been charged with murder and held that this alone would be sufficient to justify the dangerous detainee classification even without the attempted escape.
The court further held:
“Further circumstances such as personal conditions, the applicant’s behaviour in detention and the extent of his lack of moral character are subject to assessment and the decision in this respect cannot be examined from the viewpoint of lawfulness. It could be examined as regards its equity; this however would go beyond the limits of examination laid down by Article 7 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences.”
As regards the applicant’s further complaints the court held that they did not have any influence on the commission’s decision and as such “did not even merit examination.” 20.  On 11 May 2011 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 23 March 2011 holding that it had been based on “the applicant’s attitude and negative behaviour and the assessment of his rehabilitation progress”. 21.  On 22 September 2011 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission lifted the dangerous detainee regime imposed on the applicant. It relied on the applicant’s good behaviour. 22.  In total, the dangerous detainee regime was applied to the applicant for four years, one month and nine days. 23.  The applicant was detained in several detention facilities, specifically Biała Podlaska Prison and in Lublin, Mokotów, Białystok and Kielce Remand Centres. 24.  In the Kielce Remand Centre the cells were constantly monitored via closed-circuit television. According to the Government, the applicant could publish articles in the prison bulletin and participate in competitions. He had access to a library and cultural and educational activities. 25.  In the Mokotów and Białystok Remand Centres the cells and other areas in which the applicant was allowed were under special surveillance. The applicant was subject to a strip search each time he entered and left his cell. He was supervised by two officers each time he was outside of his cell. He had access to a library and daily newspapers, and could listen to the radio. He also had access to a recreation room with sport facilities. Additionally, in the Białystok Remand Centre he could participate in the programme of reintegration into society. 26.  The applicant spent most of the time complained of in the Lublin Remand Centre. The cell there was equipped with a sanitary facility which was not separated from the rest of the cell. The cell, including its sanitary facilities, was constantly monitored via closed-circuit television. 27.  The applicant had to wear a red uniform designated for dangerous detainees, which was not warm enough in winter. He was subjected to a strip search every time he left and entered the cell, which in practice meant that he had to strip naked in front of prison officers and was required to bend over in order to enable the examination of his anus. According to the applicant, whenever he was outside his cell, including his appearances at court hearings, he had to wear joined shackles (kajdanki zespolone) on his hands and feet. Those shackles consisted of handcuffs and fetters joined together with chains. According to the Government’s submissions the applicant had to wear the joined shackles only when being transported. In prison, when outside his cell, he wore handcuffs. 28.  The applicant had a one-hour-long period of outdoor exercise per day. 29.  The cell window was covered with a plastic blind which, according to the applicant, limited access to fresh air and natural light in the cell. The cell was constantly in semi-darkness and for reading, even during the day, the applicant needed to use artificial light. 30.  The applicant could participate in cultural activities and use the library three times a week; he also had access to a recreation room, equipped with a television, games, a laptop and work-out facilities. 31.  Some disciplinary measures had to be applied to the applicant because of his aggressive and vulgar attitude toward prison guards. On 4 August 2009 he attempted to assault a public servant (próba czynnej napaści na funkcjonariusza w służbie). On 17 December 2009 the Lublin Regional Court convicted him of attempting to escape while being transported to a psychiatric examination on 14 August 2007. This conviction was upheld by the Lublin Court of Appeal on 10 November 2010. On 10 February 2012 the applicant was convicted by the Lublin Regional Court of having assaulted a public servant on 4 August 2009.