PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 17249/12) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Andrzej Szafrański (“the applicant”), on 1 March 2012.

The applicant, who had been granted legal aid, was represented by Mr M. Jarzyński, a lawyer practising in Poznań. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that as a result of poor sanitary conditions and, especially, the insufficient separation of sanitary facilities from the rest of the cell, his rights under Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention had been breached.

On 17 November 2014 the application was communicated to the Government.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1963 and is currently in detention in Wronki.

The applicant has been serving a prison sentence in Wronki Prison since 31 March 2010.

On 19 September 2010 he brought a civil compensation claim before the Szamotuły District Court. He claimed that the conditions of detention in many of his cells in Wronki Prison were so bad as to amount to a breach of Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention. He referred to the fact that the cells were not properly heated in the autumn and winter and had no proper ventilation in the summer, meaning that the prisoners suffered from intense levels of heat. The windows were old and the frames leaked. He further submitted that the toilet facilities were only separated from the cells by a low fibreboard partition, which made even a minimum level of privacy impossible for him.

On 21 June 2011 the Szamotuły District Court refused a request by the applicant to gather evidence by producing photographs and carrying out an on-the-spot inspection of the cells concerned. It closed the hearing and gave judgment, dismissing the applicant’s claim in its entirety. The court established, referring to evidence submitted by the State Treasury, acting as the legal representative for Wronki Prison, that prisoners had access to sports, cultural and educational activities and medical care. They were provided with personal hygiene items and had appropriate food. Those factors, seen as a whole, alleviated the harm which was an inherent part and consequence of serving prison sentences. The court further found that the toilet facilities in the applicant’s cells were indeed separated off by fibreboard partitions. This did not provide full privacy, but was sufficient to ensure that the prisoners were out of sight of others when they used the toilet. There was a WC and a washbasin in each toilet facility. As regards the applicant’s allegations of inadequate ventilation and insufficient heating in the cells, the court found that the cells were well lit and properly ventilated; the windows had been repaired and the heaters had been changed and worked properly. As regards the alleged lack of light, the court found that the applicant had been granted special permission to use an additional reading lamp. The court was of the view that the State Treasury had not acted unlawfully and that there had been no intention to act in bad faith or to cause harm or damage to the applicant. In the absence of unlawfulness no breach of personal rights could be found. In any event, the conditions in Wronki Prison were not so harsh as to amount to a breach of personal rights.

The applicant appealed, arguing that the court had failed to establish the facts of the case correctly, in the main because it had refused to gather evidence in the form of photographs, film or an inspection of the cells. The judgment had therefore been based on insufficient factual findings. Furthermore, in so far as the court had referred to the general conditions in which the applicant served his sentence (quality of the food, medical care, access to cultural and sports activities), those factors had not constituted the basis of his claim. He had complained neither about poor food quality nor about insufficient access to cultural and sports activities. The grounds of his claim had fundamentally related to the sanitary conditions in the cells and, in particular, a lack of privacy when using the toilet. This lack of privacy had been explicitly confirmed by the first-instance court. He reiterated that the lack of a proper divide between the toilets and the cell amounted to a breach of his personal rights and dignity. He further indicated that some of the cells at the prison had toilet facilities that were properly separated from the rest of the cell by normal walls and a door.

By a judgment of 6 December 2011 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, fully accepting the findings of fact made by the first‑instance court and that court’s legal assessment of those facts. In particular, the Court of Appeal was of the view that the nuisance caused by the manner in which cells were fitted with toilet facilities, namely by way of fibreboard partitions, did not exceed the normal difficulties and harm which were inherent in serving a prison sentence.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e1
001-159205_a4_em1
CODE
DIRECT
17249/12
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e2
001-159205_a4_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Poland
ETHNIC
insert
001-159205_a4_e3
001-159205_a4_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Polish national
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e4
001-159205_a4_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Andrzej Szafrański
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e5
001-159205_a4_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
1 March 2012
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e6
001-159205_a4_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Jarzyński
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-159205_a4_e7
001-159205_a4_em7
LOC
QUASI
Poznań
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-159205_a4_e8
001-159205_a4_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
Polish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e9
001-159205_a4_em9
PERSON
NO_MASK
Ms J. Chrzanowska
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-159205_a4_e10
001-159205_a4_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e11
001-159205_a4_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
17 November 2014
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e12
001-159205_a4_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
1963
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-159205_a4_e13
001-159205_a4_em13
LOC
QUASI
Wronki
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-159205_a4_e14
001-159205_a4_em14
ORG
QUASI
Wronki Prison
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e15
001-159205_a4_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
31 March 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e16
001-159205_a4_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
19 September 2010
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e17
001-159205_a4_em17
ORG
QUASI
Szamotuły District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-159205_a4_e14
001-159205_a4_em18
ORG
QUASI
Wronki Prison
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-159205_a4_e18
001-159205_a4_em19
MISC
NO_MASK
Articles 3 and 8 of the Convention
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e19
001-159205_a4_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
21 June 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e17
001-159205_a4_em21
ORG
QUASI
Szamotuły District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e20
001-159205_a4_em22
ORG
NO_MASK
State Treasury
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e14
001-159205_a4_em23
ORG
QUASI
Wronki Prison
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e20
001-159205_a4_em24
ORG
NO_MASK
State Treasury
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e14
001-159205_a4_em25
ORG
QUASI
Wronki Prison
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e21
001-159205_a4_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
6 December 2011
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-159205_a4_e22
001-159205_a4_em27
ORG
QUASI
Poznań Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-159205_a4_e23
001-159205_a4_em28
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
Andrzej Szafrański
POL
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Andrzej Szafrański