FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no . 44/07 by Mirosł aw KUŹMICZ against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 December 2010 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Lech Garlicki , Ljiljana Mijović , Ján Šikuta , Mihai Poalelungi , Nebojša Vučinić , Vincent A. de Gaetano , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 December 2006 ,

Having regard to the final pilot judgment s in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05) delivered on 22 October 2009, in particular to the finding under Article 46 of the Convention that overcrowding in Polish prisons and remand centres revealed a structural problem,

Having regard to the decisions to declare the applications Łatak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) and Ł omiński v. Poland (no. 33502/09) inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant s ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mirosł aw Kuźmicz , is a Polish national who was born in 1 9 68 and is currently detained in Białystok Remand Centre . He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Dek , a lawyer practising in Bia łystok .

A. Particular circumstances of the case

1. Period of the applicant ’ s detention

From 18 September 2006 until the present day the applicant has been detained in Bia Å‚ystok R emand C en tre .

2. Conditions of the applicant ’ s detention

The applicant submitted that he was held in a cell which was designed for two prisoners and measured 7 m². The cell was initially furnished with three beds, three stools, two small tables and two cupboards. A toilet annex was in the corner of the cell.

From 22 September to 1 December 2006, the cell was occupied by three detainees, including the applicant. From 1 December 2006 until an unspecified date, it was shared by four inmates, including the applicant. A fourth bed was added.

The Government submitted that on an unspecified date, presumably in November 2009, the applicant had been placed in a cell in which the statutory minimum standard of 3 m² per person was respected. The applicant did not contest this submission.

3. The applicant ’ s actions concerning the conditions of his detention

The applicant lodged a number of complaints with the State authorities and the remand centre ’ s administration about the overcrowding.

By letter of 20 April 2007 the Deputy Governor of BiaÅ‚ystok Remand Centre informed the applicant that his complaint had been considered ill ‑ founded. It was stated that the situation in BiaÅ‚ystok Remand Centre was no different from that in the rest of the country, since overcrowding was a general problem in Polish detention facilities.

The applicant did not bring a civil action to seek compensation for the infringement of his personal rights.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

(See Siedlecki and 9 other applications v. Poland , no. 5246/03).

COMPLAINTS

(See Siedlecki and 9 other applications v. Poland , no. 5246/03).

THE LAW

(See Siedlecki and 9 other applications v. Poland , no. 5246/03).

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application in admissible .

Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar President