FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 74683/13 Dariusz PAKIEŁA against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 November 2019 as a Committee composed of:

Armen Harutyunyan , President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek , Pauliine Koskelo , judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 March 2014,

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

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1 . The applicant, Mr Dariusz Pakieła , is a Polish national who was born in 1981 and is currently detained in Warsaw. He had been granted legal aid and was represented before the Court by Ms H. Dessoulavy-Śliwińska , a lawyer practising in Warsaw.

2 . The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs J. Chrzanowska and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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

4 . The applicant has been serving a prison sentence in several prisons. Before 25 June 2013 he was detained in Radom Detention Centre, Ł owicz Prison, W ł oc ł awek Prison and Warsaw- Mokotów Detention Centre. In all those prisons he was served either a regular diet or a so-called “light diet”.

5 . Between 26 June and 10 July 2013 the applicant was detained in W ł oc ł awek Prison and between 10 July and 25 July 2013 he was detained in Ł owicz Prison. He was served a meat-free diet in both prisons.

6 . On 25 July 2013 the applicant was transferred to P Å‚ ock Prison. He allegedly informed the authorities upon his admission that he had previously been granted a meat-free diet.

7 . The applicant submits that on 26 July 2013 he lodged a request with the governor of P Å‚ ock Prison to be served meat-free meals on account of his religious dietary requirements. He explained that he was a vegetarian by reason of his beliefs. His letter was allegedly returned to him and no reply was given. The Government submit that, as confirmed by the domestic authorities, the applicant did not ask to be served a meat-free diet on that date.

8 . On 29 July 2013 the applicant lodged a request with the P Å‚ ock District Prosecutor, asking for criminal proceedings to be instituted against the staff of P Å‚ ock Prison on account of their refusal to provide him with a meat-free diet. He alleged that despite having asked on several occasions to be provided with a meat ‑ free diet, he had been receiving meals containing meat products.

9 . On 28 August 2013 the P ł ock District Prosecutor refused the applicant ’ s request. The prosecutor noted that there was no information in the prison records to the effect that the applicant had ever asked the governor of P ł ock Prison to be served a vegetarian diet. Furthermore, the copy of his request of 26 July 2013 had not been stamped or otherwise marked, which would have indicated that it had indeed been lodged with the authorities.

10 . On the same day the applicant lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman. He claimed that his freedom of conscience had been breached, as P ł ock Prison had refused his request for a meat-free diet, even though he had been allowed one when he had been held in W ł oc ł awek Prison and Ł owicz Prison. The Ombudsman then wrote to the prison authorities, asking them to investigate the applicant ’ s case. The Ombudsman ’ s letter was received by the Director of the Łó d ź Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service ( Dyrektor Okr ę gowy S ł u ż by Wi ę ziennej ) on 26 September 2013.

11 . On 14 October 2013 the P ł ock District Court dismissed an interlocutory appeal lodged by the applicant against the P ł ock District Prosecutor ’ s decision of 28 August 2013. The court reiterated the grounds cited by the prosecutor and stressed that the applicant had not lodged any request to be served with a meat-free diet during his detention in P ł ock Prison.

12 . On the same date, the governor of P ł ock Prison granted the applicant ’ s request to be provided with a vegetarian diet. The governor stated that the applicant ’ s complaint to the Ombudsman should be treated as a formal request to be served a special diet.

13 . On 12 November 2013 the Łó d ź Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service replied to the Ombudsman (see paragraph 10 above) that the applicant had not been granted a meat-free diet following his transfer to P ł ock Prison because he had failed to lodge a request therefor; the Inspectorate also noted that in P ł ock Prison requests for individual dietary arrangements were regularly received and that at the time in question forty inmates had been allowed and were following special diets, in conformity with their religious or cultural requirements.

14 . The relevant domestic law is set out in the judgment of Jakóbski v. Poland , (no. 18429/06, §§ 24-26, 7 December 2010).

COMPLAINT

15 . The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention that, contrary to his convictions, he had not been provided with a vegetarian diet during his detention in PÅ‚ock Prison.

THE LAW

16 . The applicant complained, under Articles 8 and 9, of the Convention of the prison authorities ’ refusal to provide him with a meat-free diet, in accordance with his religious beliefs. The Court notes that the situation complained of could be regarded as motivated or inspired by religion and is therefore covered by Article 9 of the Convention alone, which reads as follows:

“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to ... manifest his religion or belief, in ... practice and observance.

2. Freedom to manifest one ’ s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”

17 . The Government raised a preliminary objection alleging that the applicant had failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies, since he had not lodged a request with the governor of P ł ock Prison to be accorded a meat-free diet. Moreover, the application was incompatible ratione materiae with Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention as in their view, the applicant ’ s request had not been motivated by any specific views or convictions that had attained a certain level of cogency, seriousness, cohesion and importance. They also stressed that the application was incompatible ratione personae , given that the request for a special diet had eventually been granted.

18 . The Government also submitted that at the time of the events in question, forty other prisoners in Plock Prison had been granted special diets, in accordance with their religious or cultural requirements. In addition, even though the applicant had not mentioned any specific religion or system of beliefs by way of supporting his request, he had nevertheless been granted a meat-free diet. They furthermore referred to statistical material according to which the prison authorities in general granted special diets to detainees, in accordance with their religious beliefs, if that were possible to arrange and such a request was motivated by coherent reasons.

19 . The applicant disagreed with the Government ’ s submissions. He argued that he had lodged a formal request with the governor of P ł ock Prison on 26 July 2013, yet his application had not been officially processed and had been returned by the prison authorities without any markings or stamps.

20 . In addition, the applicant noted that owing to a lack of any clear regulations regarding the transfer of prisoners, despite the fact that he had been granted a meat-free diet in the previous detention centre, he had had to lodge a fresh request with the governor of P Å‚ ock Prison in order to be able to continue that dietary regime.

21 . The Court does not find it necessary to examine each and every objection of the Government, the present case being in any event inadmissible, for the following reasons.

22 . The applicable general principles are set out in paragraphs 42 ‑ 47 of Jakóbski v. Poland , (no. 18429/06, 7 December 2010).

23 . The Court observes at the outset that the parties disagreed as to whether the applicant had lodged a request to be served with the meat ‑ free diet on 26 July 2013. The Government argued that no formal request had been lodged on that date, while the applicant submitted that he had lodged such a request but that it had been returned to him without being processed (see paragraphs 7, 17, and 19 above). It must be noted in that respect that the applicant ’ s allegation was not confirmed by the domestic authorities following an investigation into his complaints (see paragraphs 9 and 11 above). Since the veracity of the applicant ’ s statement cannot be confirmed by any objective or formal evidence it is therefore not possible for the Court to reach any conclusive findings in that respect.

24 . In any event, even assuming that on 26 July 2013 the applicant indeed lodged a request to be accorded a meat-free diet on the basis of his religious beliefs and that that request was returned to him without being processed, the Court firstly notes that nothing prevented him from resubmitting his request. Secondly, it would appear that the applicant ’ s request would not have been devoid of any chance of success. As noted by the authorities, at the material time forty other prisoners at P ł ock Prison had already been granted a special diet, in accordance with their religious or cultural dietary requirements (see paragraphs 13 and 18 above). Given the circumstances, it does not appear that the provision of meat-free meals to one more prisoner would have caused any disruption for the prison authorities (compare Jakóbski , § 52, cited above).

25 . The Court furthermore observes that as soon as the prison administration became aware of the applicant ’ s complaint to the Ombudsman, he was granted a meat-free diet, even though at that time he had still failed to lodge a formal request (see paragraphs 10 and 12 above).

26 . Consequently, having regard to the dispute between the parties as to whether the applicant had lodged a request for a meat-free diet with the Pł ock Prison authorities, the relatively short period during which he was allegedly deprived of that diet, the practical demands of imprisonment, and the authorities ’ response to the applicant ’ s complaints, the Court finds that in the present case a fair balance was struck between the interests of the p enal administration and those of the applicant – namely the right to respect for his convictions (compare X v. United Kingdom , no. 5947/72, Commission decision of 5 March 1976, D ecisions and Reports (DR) 5, p. 8; Jakóbski , § 54, cited above; and Vartic v. Romania (no. 2) , no. 14150/08 , § 54, 17 December 2013 ).

27 . Accordingly, the present case is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected, in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 19 December 2019 .

Renata Degener Armen Harutyunyan Deputy Registrar President