Remainder inadmissible;Violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention;Reasonableness of pre-trial detention);Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-4 - Procedural guarantees of review;Review of lawfulness of detention);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for correspondence);Non-pecuniary damage - award

David Thór Björgvinsson;George Nicolaou;Lech Garlicki;Nebojša Vučinić;Päivi Hirvelä;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Zdravka Kalaydjieva

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

The applicant and the Government gave partly different statements in respect of certain facts of the case concerning the “ dangerous detainee ” regime , the conditions of the applicant ’s detention and his contact with his family during his detention ( see paragraphs DATE and CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) . The remaining facts were not in dispute .

On DATE the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking committed together with other identified and yet unidentified persons .

On DATE ORG ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded him in custody , relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question . It attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings by bringing to bear pressure on – unspecified – witnesses and co - suspects , in order to create favourable conditions for his defence .

An appeal by the applicant against the detention order and further decisions extending his detention , and his numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him , were all unsuccessful .

In the course of the investigation , the applicant ’s detention was extended on DATE ( to DATE ) and CARDINAL DATE ( to DATE ) . In their decisions on the matter the authorities relied on the original grounds given for his detention . The courts also stressed that , owing to the complexity of the case , the investigation had still not been completed .

On DATE a bill of indictment was lodged with ORG . The applicant was charged with drug trafficking , attempted money laundering and obtaining a loan by deception .

ORG , the applicant ’s common - law wife ( konkubina ) , was indicted on a charge of attempted money laundering in that she had attempted to invest the proceeds of crime received by the applicant from drug trafficking in the purchase of a car and entering into a bank loan agreement in order to conceal the criminal origins of the invested money .

On DATE the ORG prolonged the applicant ’s detention until DATE and then , on DATE , until DATE . The courts repeated the original grounds for his detention .

On DATE ORG made a severance order referring part of the charges to ORG ( PERSON ) . Both the prosecutor and the applicant lodged interlocutory appeals against that decision .

On DATE the case in its entirety was referred to ORG . However , on account of the subsequent amendment to the provisions governing the jurisdiction of criminal courts , the case was eventually referred back to ORG on DATE .

In the meantime , on DATE , ORG had further extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE , holding that evidence so far gathered sufficiently supported the suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged . It stressed the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the fact that he was a recidivist offender .

During the court proceedings the applicant ’s detention pending trial was extended on several occasions , namely on DATE ( to DATE ) , DATE ( to DATE ) , DATE ( to DATE ) , DATE ( to DATE ) . The courts repeated the grounds that had previously been given for keeping him in custody .

The trial was to start on DATE but it was adjourned until DATE due to the absence of CARDINAL of the witnesses .

On DATE the trial was again adjourned because the presiding judge was ill .

The first hearing was held on DATE .

On DATE ORG decided that the applicant ’s detention should no longer be continued but he remained in custody in the third set of criminal proceedings ( see paragraphs CARDINAL - CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the ORG convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a cumulative penalty of DATE imprisonment and a fine .

ORG was convicted as charged and sentenced to CARDINAL years’ imprisonment on DATE probation .

The proceedings are pending the parties’ appeals .

On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody , relying on the reasonable suspicion of his having committed robbery , theft and unlawful detention . It attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings by bringing pressure to bear on witnesses and co - suspects in general – their names or any related circumstances were not specified .

An appeal by the applicant against the detention order , and likewise his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him were unsuccessful .

In the course of the investigation , the applicant ’s detention was extended on DATE ( to DATE ) and DATE . In their decisions on the matter the authorities relied on the original grounds given for holding him in custody .

On an unspecified date in DATE a bill of indictment was lodged with ORG . The applicant was indicted on charges of robbery , theft and unlawful detention .

The first hearing was scheduled for DATE but it was adjourned . The trial started on DATE .

During the court proceedings the applicant ’s detention pending trial was further extended on DATE , CARDINAL DATE and DATE ( to DATE ) , DATE ( to DATE ) and DATE ( to DATE ) . The courts repeated the grounds that had previously been given for his continued detention .

On DATE the court decided that the applicant ’s detention should no longer be continued in this case since the maximum statutory time - limit of DATE for pre - trial detention had expired . He was still detained on remand in the first and the third set of criminal proceedings against him ( see paragraphs CARDINAL and DATE above and paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL below ) .

On DATE the ORG gave judgment . The applicant was acquitted of all the offences with which he had been charged .

On DATE ORG remanded the applicant in custody , relying on the suspicion that he had set up and organised a criminal group involved in drug - trafficking . It attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant , the serious nature of the offences of which he was suspected , the large quantities of drugs involved and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings . That risk was based on the assumption that , having regard to the leading role played by him in the group , he might bring pressure to bear on witnesses or other suspects in general ; no specific persons were named .

An appeal by the applicant against the detention order , likewise his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him were unsuccessful . In his submissions , the applicant first of all stressed that the evidence gathered had not supported sufficiently the suspicion that he had committed the offences in question . He maintained that the grounds given for his detention were vague and general and did not indicate any concrete circumstances justifying the risk that he would obstruct the course of the proceedings . He also stated that the prosecutor ’s refusal to grant him access to the case file made it impossible for him to challenge the grounds for his continued detention .

In its decision of DATE , rejecting his appeal against the order of CARDINAL DATE ORG held , among other things , the following :

“ It must be firmly stressed that the material gathered in the case [ in the form of other accused ’s testimonies and the results of searches carried out ] makes it highly probable that [ the applicant ] had committed the offences with which he had been charged . ...

The offence in question is liable to a maximum sentence of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment which , having regard to the social danger of the offences , the fact that [ the applicant ] acted together with other persons in an organised criminal group and made crime his permanent source of income , as well as to the quantity of drugs distributed and [ the applicant ’s ] criminal record , supports the [ lower court ’s ] conclusion as to the severity of the anticipated penalty .

ORG was also right in relying on the justified fear that [ the applicant ] might unlawfully influence statements of other persons . The realisation of the purposes of the investigation requires [ the authorities ] to make such actions impossible , in particular influencing the content of testimonies or evidence given by the accused .

It must be added that , as demonstrated by evidence so far obtained , [ the applicant ] set up and led an organised criminal group and had a decisive say in all matters concerning its functioning . ...

In these circumstances , the imposition of detention is entirely justified because other preventive measures would not be sufficient to ensure the proper course of the investigation . ”

In the course of the investigation , the applicant ’s detention was extended on DATE ( to DATE ) and DATE ( to CARDINAL DATE ) . In their decisions the authorities relied on the original grounds given for keeping him in custody , stressing , in particular , the severity of the penalty DATE up to eight years’ imprisonment .

On DATE a bill of indictment was lodged with ORG . It comprised CARDINAL charges brought against CARDINAL accused . The applicant was indicted on charges of drugtrafficking committed as a leader of an organised criminal group .

During the court proceedings the courts further extended the applicant ’s detention pending trial on several occasions , namely on DATE ( to CARDINAL October CARDINAL ) , DATE ( to CARDINAL DATE ) , DATE ( to CARDINAL DATE ) , DATE ( to DATE ) , CARDINAL DATE ( to CARDINAL DATE ) , on DATE ( to CARDINAL DATE ) , on DATE ( to CARDINAL DATE ) and on an unspecified subsequent date . The courts essentially repeated the grounds that had previously been given for his continued detention . In some decisions , they also relied on the highly complex nature of the case , stressing that the case file comprised CARDINAL volumes , and the need to carry out time - consuming procedural actions ( such , as for instance , the need to acquaint the accused with classified material – a process that lasted for DATE in DATE ) .

On DATE the court released the applicant on bail and under police supervision , i.e. on condition that he would report DATE to a police station . It also imposed on the applicant a ban on leaving the country .

On DATE ORG convicted the applicant of setting up and leading an organised criminal group and of participating in the distribution of large amounts of drugs . It sentenced him to a cumulative penalty of CARDINAL years’ imprisonment and a fine .

The proceedings are pending the parties’ appeals .

On DATE , in connection with his appeals against the detention order ( see paragraphs CARDINAL above ) the applicant requested ORG ( Prokurator Okręgowy ) to grant him access to the investigation file and to allow him to obtain photocopies of some documents relating to the grounds given for his detention .

On DATE the prosecutor refused that request , relying on the important interests of the proceedings ( ważny interes postępowania ) . The prosecutor observed that the investigation was still in progress and , in these circumstances , the interests of the investigation outweighed the applicant ’s right to be acquainted with the evidence so far obtained by the prosecution . The applicant appealed .

On DATE the GPE ORG upheld the refusal of CARDINAL DATE . He observed , in particular , that the right to full disclosure of evidence gathered at the investigative stage of criminal proceedings was not absolute and could , in pursuit of a legitimate aim such as the protection of witnesses or secret sources of information or the interests of the investigation , be subject to limitations . It was also underlined that such limitations were even more stringent during the investigation as at that stage the principle of adversarial proceedings did not apply .

On DATE the applicant again asked the investigating prosecutor to grant him access to the case file in order to enable him to make photocopies of certain parts of the file . He listed CARDINAL relevant pages out of CARDINAL contained in the file . The applicant relied on LAW and the principle of equality of arms , stressing that in anticipation of the prosecutor ’s request to the trial court for his detention to be further extended , he needed to inspect at least some parts of the evidence in order to challenge properly and effectively the lawfulness of his detention . In their requests , he added , the prosecution relied on evidence , LOC and circumstances that were unknown to him , which made it impossible for him to respond to the arguments adduced by them in the procedure for the extension of his detention . Lastly , the applicant invoked his constitutional right to defend himself .

On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE ( see also paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

On DATE the prosecutor , relying on Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( Kodeks postępowania karnego ) , refused to grant the applicant access to the case file . The prosecutor observed that it was already the second such request lodged within a short period of time . The only difference was that this time the applicant relied on the LAW and international law . That being so , the grounds given for the previous refusal were still valid . It was stressed that the prosecutor in his actions , in particular in assessing evidence , must be guided by the principle of objectivity and must respect the suspect ’s defence rights . However , the prosecutor should first of all ensure the efficient and unimpeded course of the investigation . Since several other persons had been charged together with the applicant , the interests of the investigation required the prosecution to keep secret the findings of fact so far made in order to secure an undisturbed process of obtaining evidence and to avoid any attempt to obstruct unlawfully the outcome of the investigation . As regards the constitutional and international - law arguments advanced by the applicant , the prosecutor considered that they had a marginal impact in the context of this decision since it had a legal basis in the Code of Criminal Procedure . The applicant appealed .

On DATE the GPE ORG upheld the refusal , repeating the previous grounds .

On DATE the applicant made a subsequent request to the investigating prosecutor , asking for photocopies of certain documents contained in the case file . He listed a total of CARDINAL relevant pages , out of CARDINAL currently contained in the file . He relied on the previous arguments , stressing that , given that his last detention order would expire on DATE , he needed to get acquainted with at least the selected documents – without being given access to the entire case file – so as to be able to challenge effectively the likely prolongation of his detention .

On DATE the prosecutor rejected the request without giving any specific grounds for his refusal .

DATE . On DATE ORG extended the applicant ’s detention until DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) .

The applicant submitted that as of DATE , i.e. the time when he had been about to be indicted before ORG ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) , he still had no access to the file .

The applicant submitted that during his detention his correspondence was continually censored by the authorities .

He produced CARDINAL envelopes of the censored letters .

Four envelopes bear a stamp that reads : “ Censored , date ... , Prosecutor ” ( ORG , dnia ... Prokurator ) , a hand written date and an illegible signature . Those envelopes contained :

CARDINAL ) NORP CARDINAL letter from ORG ( ORG ) , censored on DATE ;

CARDINAL ) NORP CARDINAL letters from ORG ( PERSON ) , censored on DATE and DATE respectively ;

CARDINAL ) NORP CARDINAL letter from ORG ( PERSON ) , censored on DATE .

CARDINAL envelopes bear a stamp that reads : “ Censored , ORG , received date ... , sent date ... ” ( ORG , PERSON , otrzymano dnia ... , wysłano dnia ... ) , a stamped date and an illegible signature . The envelopes contained the following letters :

CARDINAL ) NORP from the applicant ’s defence counsel ; censored on DATE ;

CARDINAL ) NORP from ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment , censored on CARDINAL DATE ;

CARDINAL ) NORP from ORG , censored on DATE .

The applicant did not lodge a civil action for compensation for the infringement of his personal rights on account of censorship of his correspondence under LAW read in conjunction with LAW .

DATE ( when he was arrested in the first set of proceedings ) and CARDINAL DATE ( when he was indicted before ORG ) , the applicant , despite numerous requests to that effect , was not allowed to receive visits from his son , GPE , born in DATE .

DATE and DATE the applicant was granted several open visits ( widzenie przy stoliku ) from the child , who was brought to the remand centre by a certain GPE , a third party .

On several occasions the applicant requested the Governor of ORG to have the standard CARDINAL-minute long visits from the son prolonged to TIME . All his requests were dismissed as the authorities considered that the applicant ’s behaviour was not “ more than exemplary as regards respecting the internal order in the remand centre and the prison rules ” – a circumstance which justified granting visiting privileges .

Between DATE ( when the applicant was remanded in custody in the third set of proceedings ) and DATE he was again not allowed to see his son .

The Government submitted that over the period from DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant had not asked for permission to receive visits from the son .

They stated that between DATE and DATE the applicant did not receive visits from the son .

The Government produced a detailed list of visits received by the applicant DATE and DATE . As from DATE he received visits from his son on the following dates : CARDINAL DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE , DATE DATE , DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE and CARDINAL DATE . In DATE the visits took place on CARDINAL DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL , DATE and DATE , CARDINAL and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE and DATE , DATE , DATE and DATE . Further visits took place on CARDINAL and DATE .

The child was initially accompanied by ORG and , as from DATE by ORG , the applicant ’s common - law wife and the mother of his son .

On DATE W.W. , the applicant ’s defence counsel , made a declaration that reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ As [ the applicant ’s ] defence counsel from the date on which he had been detained on remand [ in the first set of the criminal proceedings against him ] , i.e. DATE to CARDINAL DATE I made numerous requests on his behalf to the investigating prosecutor , asking him to issue permission for my client to have a visit form his CARDINAL old son PERSON ...

Despite my repeated requests , I did not obtain such permission . The grounds given for these decisions referred to [ such circumstances as ] the child ’s interests and the possibility of obtaining additional evidence or new facts from my client . Throughout the entire investigation , the prosecutor issued CARDINAL permission in DATE , which was about the time when [ the applicant ] was indicted before the court . I should add that this put a severe strain on my client and had a negative impact on his psychological state . ”

On DATE ORG informed the applicant that he had granted GPE a closed visit ( widzenie przez telefon ) and that the latter was allowed to bring the applicant ’s son with him . The visit took place in a special room with a Perspex partition separating the applicant from his visitors . The applicant was informed that in the future he would be granted CARDINAL such visit from the son DATE and that visits enabling them to have direct contact could not be allowed at that stage of the procedure .

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE the applicant was not allowed to receive visits from PERSON Initially , the investigation authorities informed him that since PERSON was to be heard as a witness in the first set of criminal proceedings against him she could not obtain permission for visits . Later , on an unspecified date in DATE , in those proceedings PERSON was charged with money laundering committed together with the applicant . She was indicted on that charge before ORG on DATE ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) . On this basis , the authorities refused to grant her permissions for visits for some further DATE .

On DATE the applicant was allowed to have a QUANTITY long conversation on the prison phone with A.W.

On DATE the applicant was granted the first open visit from ORG , who was allowed to bring their son with her . Since then the applicant has been granted on average CARDINAL visits from her and the son DATE ( see also paragraphs CARDINAL above and CARDINAL below ) .

The applicant maintained that from DATE until DATE he had not been allowed to receive visits from GPE , his mother , on the ground that she was to be heard as a witness in the first set of criminal proceedings against him .

The Government submitted that the applicant ’s mother visited the applicant in prison on DATE and CARDINAL DATE . On DATE , the applicant was granted an open visit . The second visit , in which GPE , his son , also participated was closed .

The applicant was also allowed to have a QUANTITY long conversation on the prison phone with his mother on DATE and DATE .

A copy of the applicant ’s request of CARDINAL DATE for permission to have a visit from his mother and his son , addressed to ORG ( ORG Okręgowa ) , shows that on the original request the prosecutor made a handwritten note : “ I grant permission for a supervised visit ; CARDINAL.CARDINAL.CARDINAL ” and that the permission document was given to the person concerned on DATE .

DATE . The list of visits supplied by the ORG shows that DATE and DATE the applicant received CARDINAL visits , of which CARDINAL were meetings with his defence counsel ( including CARDINAL together with a police officer ) , CARDINAL meetings with police officers , CARDINAL meetings with prosecutors and CARDINAL meeting with a notary .

The meetings with the defence counsel took place once a DATE on average .

The remaining CARDINAL visits involved the applicant ’s family . They lasted from TIME but on most occasions were TIME .

At the initial stage of his detention the applicant was only allowed to have a QUANTITY long conversation on the prison phone with his mother on DATE . He received the first family visit on DATE it was an open visit from his mother and lasted TIME .

Later , he was allowed to have CARDINAL CARDINAL-minute long phone conversation with his common - law wife , PERSON , on DATE .

He was allowed to have a second phone conversation with his mother on DATE .

On DATE the applicant received the first – supervised – visit from his son , GPE , who was brought to the remand centre by the applicant ’s mother .

On DATE the applicant received the first visit from ORG , who was allowed to bring their son with her . It was an open visit that lasted TIME .

As regards the visits which took place after the applicant was classified as a “ dangerous detainee ” ( see paragraph CARDINAL below ) , i.e. from CARDINAL DATE onwards , the list of visits supplied by the ORG shows that the applicant received CARDINAL visits altogether , of which CARDINAL were meetings with his lawyers , CARDINAL with a police officer , CARDINAL with a notary and CARDINAL with prosecutors . The CARDINAL remaining visits were from his family .

On DATE the applicant was placed in FAC ) . On DATE he was transferred to ORG .

DATE and DATE the applicant was placed in a solitary cell for dangerous detainees ( a so - called “ tymczasowo aresztowany niebezpieczny ” ; in the relevant legal provisions referred to as „ tymczasowo aresztowany stwarzający poważne zagrożenie społeczne albo poważne zagrożenie dla bezpieczeństwa aresztu ” ) without having been classified as such . The authorities of ORG justified their decision by security reasons . At that time , the applicant was not subjected to the stringent regime for dangerous detainees .

On DATE the applicant was transferred to a cell for regular prisoners .

On DATE ORG ( PERSON ) classified the applicant as a “ dangerous detainee ” . It considered that it was necessary to place him in a cell for dangerous detainees as he had been charged with numerous offences , including unlawful detention and violent robbery , committed as a leader of an organised criminal group . The commission also referred to the applicant ’s serious lack of moral character ( wysoki stopień demoralizacji ) . The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this decision .

DATE . From DATE , when the applicant was placed in a cell for dangerous detainees , he remained under increased supervision . The cell , including its sanitary facilities , was constantly monitored via close - 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 and was required to carry out deep knee - bends . The body search was performed in a separate room , which was monitored and its recording was viewable in a duty room .

The applicant , whenever he was outside his cell , including his appearances at court hearings or medical visits , wore the so - called “ joined shackles ” ( kajdanki zespolone ) on his hands and feet . Those shackles consisted of handcuffs and fetters joined together with chains .

On DATE he was taken to ORG , where he underwent a number of medical examinations and tests in connection with severe pains in the abdominal cavity . He remained there for TIME , being handcuffed and fettered . He was all the time accompanied and watched by QUANTITY policemen .

The applicant was allowed to spend TIME per day in an outdoor yard but was segregated from other detainees .

DATE and DATE , at the applicant ’s request , another inmate , a certain GPE was placed in his cell . Later , from CARDINAL DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE he had CARDINAL inmate assigned to his cell .

Every DATE ORG reviewed , and upheld , its decision classifying the applicant as a “ dangerous detainee ” . The relevant decisions were limited to a short description of the nature of the suspicions or charges laid against him which , as such , justified the maintaining of the previous decisions .

For example , the decision of DATE read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ Pursuant to LAW , ORG assigned [ the applicant ] to the category of detainees who should be placed in a remand centre in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre . The decision was based on the suspicion that he had a very high rank in organised crime structures and that he was a person displaying a serious lack of moral character . The detainee is suspected of committing offences of unlawful detention and robbery , which involved particular suffering for victims . On DATE a fresh detention order was issued by ORG , from which it transpired that he was suspected of setting up and leading an organised criminal group involved in the illegal distribution of large amounts of drugs . For this reason , the Commission upholds its decision to classify him in the category of detainees who should be placed in a remand centre in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre because the grounds for the further application of LAW of [ LAW ] did not cease to exist . ”

The applicant appealed against all the decisions , arguing that the authorities violated the provisions of LAW ( NORP karny wykonawczy ) relating to that matter . He also complained about being regularly subjected to a body search , constant monitoring of his cell and the generally inadequate equipment of the solitary cell . For instance , in his appeal against ORG decision of DATE , upholding his classification as a “ dangerous detainee ” , he submitted , among other things , the following :

“ ... Since DATE I have been classified as a ‘ dangerous ORG .... This decision is arbitrary and was given without any evaluation of the circumstances that had given rise to classify me as such . I am suspected of drug trafficking in an organised criminal group ... and for this reason I was assigned the “ dangerous ” category . Article CARDINALa § CARDINAL of LAW obliges the prison administration to evaluate the circumstances that justify the maintaining of this classification .

Regrettably , the assessment of [ the need to maintain it ] is illusory or non - existent and the subsequent extensions of the classification as ‘ dangerous’ are , so to speak , automatic .

The very fact that I was charged with acting in an organised criminal group is not sufficient to consider me a dangerous person , and certainly not sufficient to maintain this classification for DATE , having regard to the extent of the interference with [ my ] civil rights and liberties ... .

Relying on this classification , ORG subjects me to repression and interferences :

- stripping me naked ( including underwear ) and inspection of the anus – at least twice a day ;

- isolating me from all persons ( I am in a solitary cell ) for DATE ;

- watching me during my physiological acts in the toilet ;

- making it impossible for me to participate in any kind of sports activity in the prison sports field ( I do not leave the cell at all ) ;

- walking me in joined shackles all the time .

Given the degree of the interference in my life , which amounts to DATE ill - treatment and which is not based on a court conviction , one should ask to what extent a mere charge of participating in a criminal group suffices to treat me in this way , especially over the lengthy period of DATE .

For that reason , the acts of the prison administration are in breach of the law , in particular LAW [ the Convention ] . ... This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that for my part there has never been any danger to the functioning of the remand centre – this is confirmed by the fact that there has been no single instance of the use of force against me . ... [ T]he prison administration subjects me to these practices without good reason , and the status of ‘ dangerous’ serves , so to speak , as a measure of prevention , whereas this status should be restricted to the necessary minimum – otherwise it becomes an arbitrary interference with the most intimate spheres of human life . ... ”

All the applicant ’s subsequent , similar appeals were dismissed . The authorities relied on the grounds given for the initial decision .

By way of example , ORG decision of CARDINAL DATE , upholding ORG decision of DATE ( the object of the appeal cited in paragraph CARDINAL above ) read , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ The detainee ’s appeal is groundless and will not be allowed . ...

Pursuant to LAW , a detainee who is suspected of committing an offence in an organised criminal group or organisation aimed at committing offences shall be placed in a remand centre in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre .

According to paragraph CARDINAL of that provision , the review of a decision on classification of a detainee in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and prison security shall take place at least once DATE .

[ The applicant ] still poses a serious danger to society and prison security . In addition , he is remanded by ORG as a person suspected of setting up and leading an organised criminal group involved in illegal distribution of large amounts of drugs .

Accordingly , it transpires from the material gathered in the present case that the conditions of the above - cited provision have been fulfilled and , by the same token , the contested decision is lawful . ”

In DATE the applicant made many requests to the prison authorities , asking for permission to have in his cell his own sports equipment ( i.e. dumb - bells ) , own TV set , “ ORG ” console , computer games , PERSON and CDs with foreign language courses and music but all those requests were refused . He also asked the authorities to enable him to take part in training , workshops , courses or any sports activities organised for other inmates or to allow him to perform any unpaid work , submitting that his complete isolation from other people was putting an exceptionally severe strain on him . The authorities replied that there would be advertisements informing prisoners of the possibility of enrolling on courses or trainings or of unpaid work opportunities . They added , however , that the need to socialise with others was not a ground for being qualified for participation in such activities in prison .

As of DATE the applicant was still not allowed to perform any paid or unpaid work , take part in any training course , workshop or sports activity .

Until his release on DATE he was continually classified as a “ dangerous detainee ” .

The Government submitted that DATE and DATE the applicant was placed in a solitary cell in accordance with the Ordinance of the Minister of ORG of DATE on means of protection of organisational units of ORG ( ORG z dn . CARDINAL października DATE r. w sprawie sposobów ochrony jednostek organizacyjnych PERSON ) ( “ the DATE LAW ) . They did not indicate any specific provision of that ordinance . They added that during his placement in the solitary cell the applicant could watch television .

They further stated that in FAC the cells in which the applicant was held were equipped with a television set and a radio enabling him to listen to various radio stations . Every DATE Mass was broadcast .

The applicant stated that he had never had radio in his cell .

The applicant submitted that the living conditions in FAC and ORG were inadequate . The cells were unventilated ; the windows were covered by a plastic blind , which made the cell very hot during DATE . The applicant could not wear his own clothes but only a red uniform designated for dangerous detainees , which was not warm enough during the DATE time . The furniture was permanently fixed to the floor .

The applicant made numerous complaints to the prison authorities and the ORG but they were to no avail .

The applicant was detained in FAC from DATE to DATE . Until DATE he was in a cell designated for CARDINAL persons . Each inmate had at his disposal a cell surface of QUANTITY . From CARDINAL November to DATE ( i.e. for DATE ) the space available was QUANTITY per person .

The cells in which the applicant was placed were equipped with a sanitary corner with a sliding door .

The conditions of detention in FAC were good . All detainees were provided with the appropriate clothing , linen and detergents . Personal hygiene products were distributed once DATE . The bed linen was washed CARDINAL a month and underwear once DATE . Other clothes and footwear were changed depending on a given detainee ’s needs .

The detainees received meals in their cells . The meals were always served at the proper temperature and contained all the required nutritional values .

From DATE the applicant was detained in FAC . From DATE to DATE he was placed in the following cells : PERSON ( surface QUANTITY ) , ORG surface QUANTITY ) , CARDINAL ( surface CARDINAL mCARDINAL ) , CARDINAL ( surface QUANTITY ) , X- CARDINAL ( surface QUANTITY ) and X-CARDINAL ( surface QUANTITY ) . From CARDINAL DATE to DATE and from DATE to DATE he had CARDINAL inmate assigned to his cell .

All the cells in which the applicant was placed were equipped with a sanitary corner , to which the applicant had permanent access .

The detainees were provided with appropriate clothing , linen and detergents . Personal hygiene products were given to the applicant once DATE . The bed linen was washed at least twice DATE and underwear once DATE . Other clothes and footwear were changed according to a given detainee ’s needs .

On DATE , at the applicant ’s request , the authorities provided him with an extra pullover .

The detainees received meals in their cells . The meals were always served at the proper temperature and contained all the required nutritional values . The quality of meals was verified by a doctor and approved by the governor . All the cells were equipped with ventilation and heating . Detainees , including those classified as dangerous , could open the windows in their cells .

NORP Throughout his detention the applicant received adequate medical treatment from prison doctors . He also consulted specialists in psychiatry , dermatology and surgery .

In DATE the applicant sued ORG – station fisci ORG and ORG before ORG , seeking damages for the degrading conditions of his detention . On an unspecified date the particulars of claim were returned to the applicant for non - compliance with formal requirements .

On DATE the applicant lodged a fresh claim for damages arising from the physical conditions of his detention ( in particular , overcrowding , lack of proper light and ventilation and inadequate clothing provided by the authorities ) against the same defendants . It was registered in ORG under no . IC CARDINAL/CARDINAL . According to the material in the ORG ’s possession , the proceedings are pending .

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ) , the grounds for its extension , release from detention and rules governing others , so - called “ preventive measures ” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) and PERSON v. GPE ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL DATE ) .

Until DATE no provision of LAW specifically addressed the issue of a detainee ’s access to an investigation file in connection with his challenge to the imposition or to the lawfulness of his detention on remand . A general provision governing access to the case file was laid down in LAW , which is still worded as at the relevant time and which reads :

“ Unless otherwise provided for by law , in the course of an investigation the parties , defence counsel , legal and lay representatives shall be given access to the case file and shall be able to make copies and photocopies or to obtain against payment certified copies and photocopies only with the permission of the person conducting the investigation . With the permission of a prosecutor and in exceptional circumstances in the course of an investigation access to the case file may be given to other persons . ”

On the above - mentioned date Article CARDINAL was amended and a new paragraph CARDINAL(a ) was inserted . The new paragraph reads :

“ In the course of an investigation a suspect and his defence counsel shall be given access to the case - file in part including evidence indicated in a [ prosecutor ’s ] application for the imposition or extension of detention on remand and [ evidence ] listed in a [ court ] decision imposing or extending detention on remand . The prosecutor may refuse to give access to this part of the case - file only if there is a justified fear that this would jeopardise the life or health of the victim or another party to the proceedings , would entail the risk of evidence being destroyed , concealed or forged or would hinder the identification and apprehension of an accomplice to the offence with which the suspect has been charged or of perpetrators of other offences disclosed in the course of the proceedings , would reveal actions undertaken at the preinvestigative stage or would entail the risk of obstructing the investigation by any other unlawful means . ”

ORG . The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the censorship of ORG correspondence are set out in the ORG ’s judgment in the case of Kliza v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , DATE .

Article CARDINALa of LAW Sentences reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . NORP The penitentiary commission shall classify a detainee as posing a serious danger to society or to the security of a remand centre . It shall review its decisions on that matter at least once DATE . The authority at whose disposal a detainee remains and a penitentiary judge shall be informed of decisions taken .

A detainee , referred to in subparagraph CARDINAL , shall be placed in a designated remand centre ’s ward or in a cell in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre . A penitentiary judge shall be informed about this placement .

A detainee who is suspected of committing an offence in an organised criminal group or organisation aimed at committing offences shall be placed in a remand centre in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre , unless particular circumstances militate against such placement .

The penitentiary commission referred to in the above provision is set up by the governor of the prison or the governor of the remand centre . It is composed of prison officers and prison employees . Other persons DATE such as representatives of associations , foundations and institutions involved in rehabilitation of prisoners as well as church or religious organisations – may participate in the work of the commission in an advisory capacity . If the commission ’s decision on the classification of a prisoner or detainee is contrary to the law , the relevant penitentiary court may quash or alter that decision ( Article CARDINAL ) . A detainee may appeal against the penitentiary commission ’s decision but solely on the ground of its non - conformity with the law ( Article CARDINAL ) .

Article CARDINALb of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences lays down specific arrangements for detention of a “ dangerous detainee ” . It reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . In a remand centre a detainee referred to in Article CARDINAL shall be held in the following conditions :

CARDINAL ) NORP cells and places designated for work , study , walks , visits , religious services , religious meetings and religious classes , as well as cultural and educational activities , physical exercise and sports , shall be equipped with adequate technical and protective security systems ;

CARDINAL ) cells shall be controlled more often than those in which detainees [ not classified as “ dangerous ” ] are held ;

CARDINAL ) a detainee may study , work , participate directly in religious services , religious meetings and classes , and participate in cultural and educational activities , exercise and do sports only in the ward in which he is held ;

CARDINAL ) a detainee ’s movement around a remand centre shall be under increased supervision and shall be restricted to what is strictly necessary ;

CARDINAL ) a detainee shall be subjected to a personal check ( kontrola osobista ) each time he leaves and enters his cell ;

CARDINAL ) a detainee ’s walk shall take place in designated areas and under increased supervision ;

CARDINAL) visits shall take place in designated areas and under increased supervision ... ;

CARDINAL ) a detainee may not use his own clothes or footwear .

Rules on the use of handcuffs , fetters and other restraint measures are laid down in the ORG ’s Ordinance of CARDINAL DATE on conditions and manner of using direct restraint measures by policemen ( as amended on DATE ) ( ORG PERSON z dnia CARDINAL września DATE r. w sprawie określenia przypadków oraz warunków i sposobów użycia przez policjantów środków przymusu bezpośredniego ) ( “ the DATE LAW ) . Paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE Ordinance reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL Handcuffs shall be put on hands kept on the front . If a person is aggressive or dangerous , handcuffs may be put on hands kept behind the back .

CARDINAL NORP In respect of persons detained or sentenced to imprisonment , in particularly justified cases joined shackles designed to be worn on hands and legs may be used . ”

The wards “ N ” ( from “ niebezpieczny ” – dangerous in NORP ) designed for dangerous detainees are closed units within prisons or remand centres , shut off to other sections of the detention facility . They are placed in a separate building or in a specific part of the prison building fully isolated from other sections of the prison , usually through a special entry or corridor . A security door remains closed at all times and the entire ward is continually monitored via close - circuit television . Regular DATE routines ( provision of meals , clothes , etc . ) are organised with the use of remote- controlled devices , reducing to the minimum any direct contact between the detainees and the prison guards . The prison guards wear bullet - proof jackets .

Routine searches of cells are often carried out .

The detainees , whenever outside cells , even within the ward “ N ” , wear “ joined shackles ” or are handcuffed at all times . They are subjected to a personal check before leaving cells and on return . They all wear special red uniforms . They have a DATE , solitary walk in a specially designated and segregated area and if they are allowed to spend some time in a DATE room , they usually remain alone . They are not necessarily subjected to solitary confinement and may share the cell with an inmate or inmates but , pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE Ordinance , the number of detainees in the cell is limited to CARDINAL persons at the same time .

According to paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of the DATE Ordinance , a dangerous detainee can move within the detention facility only singly . In justified cases such detainees may move in a group of CARDINAL but under the increased supervision by the prison guards .

Paragraph CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) states that , outside the cell and facilities designated for “ N ” detainees , an “ N ” inmate must be permanently and directly supervised by CARDINAL prison guards . This restriction can only exceptionally and in justified cases be lifted by the Prison Governor .

A dangerous detainee can not perform any work using dangerous tools , handle devices designed to make dangerous or illegal objects , take up any work enabling him to set fire , cause an explosion or any danger to the prison security or work in any place enabling an escape or uncontrolled contact with other persons ( paragraph CARDINAL ) . He is not allowed to make purchases in the prison shop but must submit his shopping list to a designated prison guard . The goods are delivered directly to his cell ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

As of DATE there were CARDINAL “ N ” wards in NORP prisons , which had the capacity to hold from CARDINAL to CARDINAL detainees .

As of DATE there were CARDINAL “ dangerous detainees ” ( convicted or detained on remand ) in “ N ” wards .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW defines the “ personal check ” in the following way :

“ A personal check means an inspection of the body and checking of clothes , underwear and footwear as well as [ other ] objects in a [ prisoner ’s ] possession . The inspection of the body , checking of clothes and footwear shall be carried out in a room , in the absence of third parties and persons of the opposite sex and shall be effected by persons of the same sex . ”

Pursuant to paragraph CARDINAL of the DATE Ordinance :

“ CARDINAL . A [ dangerous ] detainee shall be subjected to a personal or cursory check , in particular :

CARDINAL ) NORP before leaving the ward or the workplace and after his return there ;

CARDINAL ) NORP before individual conversations or meetings with the representatives of the prison administration or other persons that take place in the ward ;

CARDINAL ) NORP immediately after the use of a direct coercive measure – if it is possible given the nature of the measure ;

CARDINAL ) NORP directly before the beginning of the escort . ”

By virtue of the law of DATE on amendments to LAW ( ustawa o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks karny wykonawczy ) ( “ the DATE LAW Article PERSON was rephrased and new rules on monitoring detention facilities by means of close - circuit television were added . LAW entered into force on DATE .

NORP The former text of LAW ( see paragraph CARDINAL above ) became paragraph CARDINAL of this provision and a new paragraph CARDINAL was introduced . This new provision is formulated as follows :

“ CARDINAL . The behaviour of a person in pre - trial detention referred to in LAW in a prison cell , including its part designated for sanitary and hygienic purposes and in places referred to in paragraph CARDINAL ( CARDINAL ) [ of this provision ] shall be monitored permanently . The images and sound [ obtained through monitoring ] shall be recorded . ”

The above provision belongs to the set of new rules that introduced monitoring in prisons by means of close - circuit television as a necessary security measure .

The new Article CARDINALa reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . Detention facilities may be monitored through an internal system of devices registering images or sound , including close - circuit television .

Monitoring , ensuring the observation of a prisoner ’s behaviour , may be used in particular in prison cells including parts designated for sanitary and hygienic purposes , in baths , in LOC designated for visits , in places of employment of detainees , in traffic routes , in prison yards , as well as to ensure observation of the prison grounds outside buildings , including the lines of external walls .

Monitored images or sound may be registered with the help of appropriate devices .

Monitoring and registering of sound may not include information subject to the seal of confession or secret protected by law .

Images from close - circuit television installed in the part of the prison cell designated for sanitary and hygienic purposes and in baths shall be transmitted to monitors or other devices referred to in paragraph CARDINAL in a manner making it impossible to show [ detainees’ ] private parts or their intimate physiological functions .

Pursuant to LAW ( a ) § § CARDINAL and DATE , if the registered material is not relevant for the prison security or security of an individual prisoner it shall be immediately destroyed . The Prison Governor decides for how long the relevant registered material should be stored and how it is to be used .

NORP However , all registered material concerning a dangerous detainee is stored in accordance with Article CARDINALc , which reads as follows :

“ The behaviour of a [ detainee classified as dangerous ] in a prison cell , including its part designated for sanitary and hygienic purposes and in places referred to in LAW ( CARDINAL ) [ places and premises designated for work , education , walking exercise , receiving visits , religious service , religious meetings and teaching , as well as cultural , educational and sports activity ] shall be monitored permanently . The images and sound [ obtained through monitoring ] shall be recorded . ”

Before that amendment , the rules on monitoring detainees were as included in paragraph CARDINAL § DATE Ordinance , according to which a prison cell could be additionally equipped with video cameras and devices enabling listening .

Pursuant to LAW , as applicable until DATE , a detainee was allowed to receive visitors , provided that he had obtained a visit permission ( “ zezwolenie na widzenie ” ) from the authority at whose disposal he remained , i.e. an investigating prosecutor ( at the investigative stage ) or from the trial court ( once the trial had begun ) or from the appellate court ( in appeal proceedings ) . A detainee was entitled to CARDINAL onehour long visit per month .

According to paragraphs CARDINAL and CARDINAL , a visit should take place in the presence of a prison guard in a manner making it impossible for a detainee to have direct contact with a visitor but the authority which issued the permission may set other conditions . In practice , there are QUANTITY types of visits : an “ open visit ” , a “ supervised visit ” ( widzenie w obecności funkcjonariusza PERSON ) and a “ closed visit ” .

An open visit takes place in a common room designated for visits . Each detainee and his visitors have at their disposal a table at which they may sit together and can have an unrestricted conversation and direct physical contact . Several detainees receive visits at the same time and in the same room .

A supervised visit takes place in the same common room but the prison guard is present at the table , controls the course of the visit , may restrict physical contact if so ordered under the visit permission , although his principal role usually is to ensure that the visit is not used for the purposes of obstructing the proceedings or achieving any unlawful aims and to prevent the transferring of any forbidden objects from or to prison .

A closed visit takes place in a special room . A detainee is separated from his visitor by a Perspex partition and they communicate through an internal phone .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL lays down specific conditions for receiving visits by dangerous detainees in the following way :

“ In the case of a [ dangerous detainee ] , the governor of the remand centre shall inform the authority at whose disposal a detainee remains of the existence of a serious danger for a visitor and that it is necessary to grant a visit permission in a manner making [ his or her ] direct contact with a detainee impossible . ”

The judgment was given following an application , lodged by the ORG on DATE , alleging that LAW was incompatible with a number of constitutional provisions , including the principle of protection of private and family life ( LAW ) , the principle of proportionality ( LAW ) , LAW . ORG judgment became effective on DATE , the date of its publication in ORG ) .

ORG ruled that LAW , in so far as it did not specify the reasons for refusing family visits to those in pre - trial detention , was incompatible with the above provisions . The court held that this provision did not indicate with sufficient clarity the limitations on a detainee ’s constitutional right to protection of private and family life . The court also considered that LAW was incompatible with LAW in so far as it did not provide for a possibility to appeal against a prosecutor ’s decision to refuse a family visit to those in pre - trial detention .

On DATE ORG adopted amendments to LAW . In particular , subparagraphs CARDINALa-CARDINALf were added . These provisions stipulate that a detainee is entitled to CARDINAL family visit per month . In addition , they indicate specific conditions for refusing a family visit to a detainee and provide an appeal procedure against such a refusal . The amendments entered into force on DATE .

Article CARDINAL of the Civil Code contains a non - exhaustive list of socalled “ personal rights ” ( dobra osobiste ) . This provision states :

“ The personal rights of an individual , such as , in particular , health , liberty , honour , freedom of conscience , name or pseudonym , image , secrecy of correspondence , inviolability of the home , scientific or artistic work , [ as well as ] inventions and improvements , shall be protected by the civil law regardless of the protection laid down in other legal provisions . ”

Article CARDINAL , paragraph CARDINAL , of the Civil Code provides :

“ A person whose personal rights are at risk [ of infringement ] by a third party may seek an injunction , unless the activity [ complained of ] is not unlawful . In the event of infringement [ the person concerned ] may also require the party who caused the infringement to take the necessary steps to remove the consequences of the infringement ... In compliance with the principles of this LAW [ the person concerned ] may also seek pecuniary compensation or may ask the court to award an adequate sum for the benefit of a specific public interest . ”

Under LAW of LAW , a person whose personal rights have been infringed may seek compensation . That provision , in its relevant part , reads :

“ The court may grant an adequate sum as pecuniary compensation for non - material damage ( krzywda ) suffered to anyone whose personal rights have been infringed . Alternatively , the person concerned , regardless of seeking any other relief that may be necessary for removing the consequences of the infringement sustained , may ask the court to award an adequate sum for the benefit of a specific public interest ... ”

Articles CARDINAL et seq . of the NORP LAW provide for the ORG ’s liability in tort .

Article CARDINAL § CARDINAL of LAW ( as amended ) provides :

“ ORG , or [ as the case may be ] a self - government entity or other legal person responsible for exercising public authority , shall be liable for any damage ( szkoda ) caused by an unlawful act or omission [ committed ] in connection with the exercise of public authority . ”

Article CARDINAL of LAW sets out limitation periods for civil claims based on tort , including claims under LAW read in conjunction with ORG and CARDINAL of LAW . This provision , in the version applicable as from DATE , reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL . A claim for compensation for damage caused by a tort shall lapse after the expiration of DATE from the date on which the claimant learned of the damage and of a person liable for it . However , this time - limit may not be longer than DATE following the date on which the event causing the damage occurred . ”

The recommendation , in its part relating to the application of security measures reads , in so far as relevant , as follows :

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL The security measures applied to individual prisoners shall be the minimum necessary to achieve their secure custody .

CARDINAL The security which is provided by physical barriers and other technical means shall be complemented by the dynamic security provided by an alert staff who know the prisoners who are under their control .

CARDINAL As soon as possible after admission , prisoners shall be assessed to determine :

a. the risk that they would present to the community if they were to escape ;

b. the risk that they will try to escape either on their own or with external assistance .

CARDINAL Each prisoner shall then be held in security conditions appropriate to these levels of risk .

CARDINAL The level of security necessary shall be reviewed at regular intervals throughout a person ’s imprisonment . ”

“ CARDINAL.CARDINAL As soon as possible after admission , prisoners shall be assessed to determine whether they pose a safety risk to other prisoners , prison staff or other persons working in or visiting prison or whether they are likely to harm themselves .

CARDINAL Procedures shall be in place to ensure the safety of prisoners , prison staff and all visitors and to reduce to a minimum the risk of violence and other events that might threaten safety .

CARDINAL Every possible effort shall be made to allow all prisoners to take a full part in DATE activities in safety .

CARDINAL It shall be possible for prisoners to contact staff at all times , including during TIME .

CARDINAL National health and safety laws shall be observed in prisons . ”

“ CARDINAL Special high security or safety measures shall only be applied in exceptional circumstances .

CARDINAL.CARDINAL There shall be clear procedures to be followed when such measures are to be applied to any prisoner .

CARDINAL The nature of any such measures , their duration and the grounds on which they may be applied shall be determined by national law .

CARDINAL The application of the measures in each case shall be approved by the competent authority for a specified period of time .

CARDINAL Any decision to extend the approved period of time shall be subject to a new approval by the competent authority .

CARDINAL Such measures shall be applied to individuals and not to groups of prisoners . ”

From DATE to CARDINAL DATE ORG for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( “ the ORG ” ) carried out a periodic visit to selected detention establishments in GPE .

The ORG visited wards designated for dangerous detainees in the FAC , FAC and FAC . The ORG report contains a general description of the “ N ” regime and a number of specific recommendations aimed at ameliorating conditions of detention of inmates with “ N ” category status in the establishments visited . It also lists recommendations aimed at removing perceived shortcomings of the “ dangerous detainee ” regime in general .

The following observations were made in paragraph CARDINAL of the report in respect of the application of the regime :

“ The regime applied to ‘ N’ category prisoners remained very restrictive , similar to the CARDINAL described in the report on the DATE visit . Out - of - cell time consisted essentially of TIME of outdoor exercise per day ( taken either alone or in the company of a cellmate ) and access to a recreation room twice DATE at FAC and FAC . Inmates could have their own TV in the cell . They were entitled to a DATE shower , DATE , and CARDINAL phone calls per month for sentenced prisoners ( at the prosecutor ’s discretion for remand prisoners ) at ORG and PERSON prisons , and a TIME - daily phone call for sentenced prisoners at FAC . Contact with staff was limited to occasional visits by educators , psychologists and a chaplain .

The ORG remains of the opinion that the regime for ‘ N’ status prisoners should be fundamentally reviewed . Solitary confinement or small - group isolation for extended periods is more likely to de - socialise than re - socialise people . There should instead be a structured programme of constructive and preferably out - of - cell activities , and educators and psychologists should be proactive in working with " N " status prisoners to encourage them to take part in that programme and attempt to engage them safely with other prisoners for at least a part of DATE . As stressed in the report on the visit in DATE , regardless of the gravity of the offences of which prisoners are accused or have been convicted and/or their presumed dangerousness , efforts must be made to provide them with appropriate stimulation and , in particular , with adequate human contact . ”

In paragraph CARDINAL of the report the ORG referred to the procedure for the classification as a “ dangerous detainee ” and the usually lengthy application of the “ dangerous detainee ” status in the following terms :

“ The procedure for allocation and review of ‘ N’ status remained unchanged . Despite the presence of regular DATE reviews , most prisoners remained in ‘ N’ status for lengthy periods of time . ...

The ORG must stress that placement in an ‘ N’ unit should not be a purely passive response to the prisoner ’s attitude and behaviour . Instead , reviews of placement should be objective and meaningful , and form part of a positive process designed to address the prisoner ’s problems and permit his ( re-)integration into the mainstream prison population . In the ORG ’s opinion , the procedure for allocating a prisoner to ‘ N’ status should be refined to ensure that only those who pose an ongoing high risk if accommodated in the mainstream of the prison population are accorded this status . Reviews of ‘ N’ status should specify clearly what is to be done to assist the prisoner concerned to move away from the ‘ N’ status and provide clear criteria for assessing development . Prisoners should be fully involved in all review processes . The ORG reiterates its recommendation that the NORP authorities review current practice with a view to ensuring that " N " status is only applied and maintained in relation to prisoners who genuinely require to be placed in such a category . ”

In paragraph CARDINAL , the ORG expressed the following opinion regarding the practice of routine strip - searches :

“ The ORG also has serious misgivings about the systematic practice of obliging ‘ N’ status prisoners to undergo routine strip - searches whenever entering or leaving their cells . The prisoners concerned had to undress completely , and squat fully naked in view of the guards and any prisoner(s ) sharing the cell while all their clothes were examined .

In the ORG ’s opinion , such a practice could be considered as amounting to degrading treatment . ORG recommends that strip - searches only be conducted on the basis of a concrete suspicion and in an appropriate setting and be carried out in a manner respectful of human dignity . ”

The ORG gave the following general recommendations to ORG in respect to prisoners classified as “ dangerous ” ( “ N ” status ) :

“ - the NORP authorities to review the regime applied to ‘ N’ status prisoners and to develop individual plans aimed at providing appropriate mental and physical stimulation to prisoners ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ;

- the NORP authorities to review current practice with a view to ensuring that ‘ N’ status is only applied and maintained in relation to prisoners who genuinely require to be placed in such a category ( paragraph CARDINAL ) ;

- strip - searches to be conducted only on the basis of a concrete suspicion and in an appropriate setting , and to be carried out in a manner respectful of human dignity ( paragraph CARDINAL ) .

ORG response to the ORG report was published on DATE .

In respect of the recommendation that the NORP authorities should revise the regime applied against “ N ” status prisoners and develop individual plans aimed at providing inmates with appropriate psychological and physical stimulation ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , they stated :

“ PERSON ] ... classified in the category of so - called dangerous offenders have a possibility of selecting a system in which they serve their sentence of imprisonment , i.e. programmed impact or an ordinary system . The above does not apply to sentenced juvenile offenders who are classified as dangerous and who obligatorily serve their sentence in the system of programmed impact . In an ordinary system , a convict may use employment available at the penitentiary institution , as well as education and cultural - educational and sports classes . As far as such convicts are concerned , no plans are made for application of the individual programme of impact . The individual programme of impact is prepared in co - operation with the convict who declared that he wishes to serve his sentence in the system of programmed impact , which anticipates active participation of the convict in the process of re - socialization by means of fulfilment of tasks imposed upon him as part of the programme which are aimed at solving the problems constituting the grounds for the offences he committed .

Dangerous convicts qualified in a therapeutic system requiring specialized impact re presented with individual therapeutic programmes preceded by diagnosis , which encompasses :

CARDINAL ) a description of the causes of the event ;

CARDINAL ) a description of irregularities in the area of cognitive , emotional and behavioural processes ;

CARDINAL ) characteristics of the actual state of their psychological and physical condition ;

CARDINAL ) a description of the problem constituting the grounds justifying delegation for the therapeutic system ;

CARDINAL ) description of individual problems of the convict ;

CARDINAL ) evaluation of motivation to participate in implementation of the individual therapeutic programme ;

CARDINAL ) indication of positive features if personality and behaviour of the convict .

When developing an individual therapeutic programme , the following should be specified :

CARDINAL ) the scope of the conducted activities ;

CARDINAL ) purpose of impact , possible to be undertaken in the conditions of a therapeutic ward or outside such ward , taking into account the properties of the convict ;

CARDINAL ) methods of specialized impact ;

CARDINAL ) criteria for implementation of an individual therapeutic programme .

Convicts qualified in the category of so - called dangerous are subjected to penitentiary impact with limitations deriving from the fact of causing by them of serious social threat or a serious threat to security of the institution . Moreover , they are subjected to impact whose purpose is to , in particular , decrease emotional tensions , as well as limitation of tendencies for aggressive or self - aggressive behaviours . In the individual programme of impact and the individual therapeutic programme conducted for him , methods and measures are specified which are aimed at mental and physical stimulation of the convict . It should also be emphasised that each inmate , including dangerous offender , exhibiting symptoms of worsening of his mental conditions is covered by psychological and psychiatric help . Moreover , dangerous inmates are also covered by intensive psychological supervision for the purpose of elimination of tensions resulting from an increased isolation .

The NORP prison system developed rules of organization and conditions of conduct of penitentiary impact against convicts , persons under detention on remand and punished persons who pose serious social danger or serious danger for security of the penitentiary institution or a detention on remand centre , kept in conditions ensuring increased security of the community and the security of the penitentiary institution . Such solutions are aimed at intensification and unification of impact against dangerous inmates , and in particular :

- directing the penitentiary work on preventing of negative consequences of limitation of social contacts by organization and initiation of desirable activity as part of cultural - educational and sports activities , re - adaptation programmes ;

- undertaking measures connected with maintenance of mental hygiene , including the reduction of the level of stress and aggression ;

- a need of allowing the inmate to commence or continue education ( in particular in case of juvenile offenders ) ;

- undertaking of employment in the division ;

- impact based on educational and prophylactic programmes .

Recommendations of the ORG concerning development of individual programmes for dangerous convicts have been taken into account and are implemented according to the provisions binding in this regard . ”

Referring to the recommendation that the NORP authorities should verify their current practice in order to ensure that the “ N ” status is accorded appropriately and maintained only in respect to prisoners who do , in fact , require being qualified in such category ( paragraph CARDINAL ) , the Government responded :

“ In the NORP penal law , the basic legal act specifying criteria of qualifying inmates creating serious social danger or serious danger to security of the institution is the [ LAW ] .

The aforementioned inmates are placed in a designated division or cell of a penitentiary institution or an investigation detention centre in conditions ensuring increased protection of the community and the security of the penitentiary unit . An authority authorized to verify a necessity of further stay of the inmate in a designated division or cell is a penitentiary commission . The penitentiary commission is obliged to verify its decisions in this regard at least once DATE . Decisions taken by the penitentiary commission shall be each time notified to the penitentiary judge , and in the event of detention on remand , also to the authority at whose disposal the inmate is . The penitentiary commission performed an inquisitive and , in every case , individual analysis of justification of the request for qualification , as well as verifies a necessity of continued stay of the inmates in delegated division or cell .

Moreover , attention should be drawn to the fact that each decision of the authority executing the judgement according to Art . CARDINAL of the [ LAW ] is subject to an appeal by the inmate .

Summing up the above , we can state that such frequent verification of this category of inmates , an analysis of behaviours and a legal situation gives a guarantee of real evaluation of the situation of the inmate and possible benefits deriving from continued application against him of an extended system of protection . ”

Lastly , in regard to the recommendation that a strip - search should be conducted only on the basis of a concrete suspicion and under appropriate conditions , as well as with respect for human dignity ( paragraph CARDINAL of the Report ) , the Government stated :

“ The principles and procedures of performing a personal search of the inmate and other persons in penitentiary institutions and investigation detention centres are regulated in the [ Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences ] and the [ Ordinance of the Minister of ORG of DATE on means of protection of organisational units of ORG ] . According to these provisions , personal check - up consists of examination of the body and checking clothes , underwear and shoes , including any objects in possession of the convict . Inspection of the body and checking - up clothes and shoes is each time performed by officers of ORG in a separate room , in absence of any third parties and persons of a different sex , and is performed by persons of the same sex . The conducted control must , on many occasions have a prevention character , but it is always performed with respect for human dignity , applying the principle of humanitarianism and legality . The control is conducted for the purpose of finding dangerous and forbidden products and preventing an escape or in other justified cases . Departure from these rules would entail a realistic threat to security of the penitentiary unit and inmates kept therein . ”


David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza

The applicant , Mr PERSON , is a NORP national who was born in DATE and lives in GPE . He was represented before ORG , solicitors in GPE . ORG ( “ the Government ” ) were represented by their Agent , PERSON of ORG .

The facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows .

The applicant ’s wife died on DATE . His claim for widows’ benefits was made on DATE and was rejected on DATE on the ground that he was not entitled to widows’ benefits because he was not a woman . The applicant did not appeal as he considered or was advised that such a remedy would be bound to fail since no such social security benefits were payable to widowers under GPE law .

The applicant was not in receipt of child benefit at the time of his claim .

The domestic law relevant to this application is set out in PERSON v. the GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § DATE , ORG CARDINAL-IV and Runkee and White v. GPE , no . CARDINAL , § § CARDINAL , DATE .


The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

He is the owner of a flat in GPE , which he had let to GPE

In a registered letter of CARDINAL DATE , the applicant informed the tenant that he intended to terminate the lease on expiry of the term on DATE and asked him to vacate the LOC by DATE .

In a writ served on the tenant on DATE , the applicant reiterated his intention to terminate the lease and summoned the tenant to appear before ORG .

By a decision of CARDINAL DATE , which was made enforceable on DATE , ORG upheld the validity of the notice to quit and ordered that the premises be vacated by DATE .

On DATE , the applicant served notice on the tenant requiring him to vacate the premises .

On DATE , the applicant made a statutory declaration that he urgently required the premises as accommodation for himself .

On DATE , he informed the tenant that the order for possession would be enforced by a bailiff on DATE .

DATE and DATE , the bailiff made CARDINAL attempts to recover possession . Each attempt proved unsuccessful , as the applicant was never granted the assistance of the police in enforcing the order for possession .

In the meanwhile , pursuant to LAW . CARDINAL of DATE , on DATE , the tenant asked ORG to postpone the enforcement proceedings . On DATE , ORG set a fresh date for DATE .

On DATE , the tenant asked ORG to postpone the enforcement proceedings .

On DATE , ORG decided to provisionally suspend the enforcement and adjourned the hearing until DATE .

On DATE , the hearing was reported to DATE .

On DATE , ORG ordered that the premises be vacated as soon as possible .

On DATE , the applicant recovered possession of the flat .

The relevant domestic law and practice is described in the ORG ’s judgments in the cases of ORG , ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL ) and PERSON v. GPE , ( no . CARDINAL/CARDINAL , § § DATE , CARDINAL ) .


Violation of Art. 14+8 with regard to different treatment of homosexuals and heterosexuals;Not necessary to examine Art. 14+8 with regard to alleged discrimination on basis of age;Pecuniary damage - claim dismissed;Non-pecuniary damage - financial award;Costs and expenses (domestic proceedings) - claim dismissed;Costs and expenses partial award - Convention proceedings

The relevant facts of the case , as submitted by the parties , may be summarised as follows . The events described below took place DATE .

The applicant contacted the police after he was attacked by a young man with whom he had had homosexual relations . He was arrested for allegedly engaging in buggery with a young man aged DATE of age contrary to section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) and schedule CARDINAL of LAW DATE . The applicant underwent a medical examination with his consent during which samples were taken and his residence was searched by police . He was released on police bail DATE and was subsequently formally charged .

NORP The applicant attended before ORG on four occasions and each time he was bailed to re - appear . During this period , the applicant wrote to ORG ( ORG ) and other government officials stating that the criminal proceedings against him violated his human rights , citing the case of GPE v. GPE ( no . ORG report of DATE , unpublished ) .

The applicant subsequently requested leave to apply for judicial review of the ORG decision to prosecute him but this application was refused . His renewed application was later rejected by ORG . Following a hearing at ORG , the applicant was committed for trial at ORG . He appeared before ORG for a plea and directions hearing and for a hearing on various matters including his request for the trial to be postponed in order to allow him more time to prepare .

The ORG later advised the applicant by letter that it had decided not to proceed with the case against him and that he should accordingly attend ORG on a particular date . On DATE he was formally acquitted by that court . The trial judge asked the applicant if he would like to make a claim for costs but , following a brief discussion , the applicant decided not to make any claim on the grounds that , in his view , the ORG were “ quibbling ” over the amount to be awarded .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) made it an offence for a person to commit buggery with another person . Pursuant to LAW of LAW it was an offence for a man to commit an act of “ gross indecency ” with another man , whether in public or private .

Section CARDINAL(CARDINAL ) of LAW made it an offence for a person to commit indecent assault on a woman . LAW ) of LAW provided that a girl under DATE could not give any consent which would prevent an act being an assault for the purposes of the section .

Section CARDINAL of LAW DATE ( “ the CARDINAL Act ” ) provided , inter alia , as follows :

“ ( CARDINAL ) Notwithstanding any statutory or common law provision ... a homosexual act in private shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained DATE . ...

( CARDINAL ) For the purposes of this section a man shall be treated as doing a homosexual act if , and only if , he commits buggery with another man or commits an act of gross indecency with another man or is a party to the commission by a man of such an act ... ”

The subsequent ORG and LAW DATE ( “ the DATE LAW ) replaced “ DATE ” in LAW with “ DATE ” .

This Act entered into force on DATE . Section CARDINAL reads :

“ ( CARDINAL ) In LAW CARDINAL-

( a ) in subsections ( CARDINALA ) and ( CARDINAL ) of LAW ( buggery ) ; and

( b ) in sub - paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) of paragraph CARDINAL ( indecency between men etc . ) of Schedule CARDINAL ( punishments etc . ) ,

for the word ' DATE ' there shall be substituted the word ' QUANTITY ' . ”


Violation of P1-1;Just satisfaction dismissed (out of time)

The applicant was born in DATE and lives in GPE .

On DATE ORG expropriated a plot of land belonging to the applicant . A committee of experts assessed the value of the plot and the relevant amount was paid to him when the expropriation took place .

Following the applicant ’s request for increased compensation , on DATE ORG of First - instance awarded him additional compensation plus interest at the statutory rate .

On DATE ORG quashed the judgment .

On DATE ORG of First - instance awarded the applicant an additional compensation of GPE NORP liras ( GPE ) plus interest at the statutory rate applicable at the date of the court ’s decision running from DATE , the date on which the title deed to the land had been transferred to ORG .

On DATE ORG upheld the judgment of the Firstinstance court .

On DATE ORG rejected the parties’ request for rectification .

On DATE ORG paid the amount of ORG to the applicant .

After the application was communicated to the Government , the applicant was requested to submit his observations on the merits of the case and also her just satisfaction claims until DATE . However , he failed to submit them within the required time - limit . He did not request any extension of time , either .

By registered letter of CARDINAL DATE the applicant was informed that ORG had not received his observations and just satisfaction claims and that the ORG might strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant did not intend to pursue the application .

On DATE the applicant submitted his observations containing his just satisfaction claims .

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the Aka v. GPE judgment of DATE ( Reports of Judgments and Decisions CARDINAL-VI , pp . DATE , § § DATE ) .