FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 62395/12 Artur DEJNEK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 22 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Päivi Hirvelä , President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek , Yonko Grozev , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 September 2012 ,

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

Having regard to the comments submitted by the Polish Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr Artur Dejnek , is a Polish national, who was born in 1976 and is detained in Lublin . His application was lodged on 10 September 2012 . He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Rowiński , a lawyer practising in Lublin .

2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) we re represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

4. On 10 October 2008 the applicant was arrested on charge of attempted murder and detained on remand in the Lublin Remand Centre. He was subsequently convicted on 12 December 2011 .

2. Imposition of the so-called “ P-Z ” status

5. On 10 October 2008 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (“the commission”) classified the applicant as “ P-1/Z”: detained for the first time, in a closed prison in ordinary system, as charged with attempted murder .

6. The commission reviewed, and upheld its decision classifying the applicant as a “ P-1/Z detainee ” every six months.

7. In particular, in its decision of 13 June 2012 the commission relied on a negative opinion as regards the applicant ’ s progress in rehabilitation. The applicant appealed against the decision in question.

8. On 13 August 2012 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the appeal finding that the challenged decision had been lawful.

3 . Imposition of the so-called “dangerous detainee” regime

9. On 26 August 2009 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (“the commission”) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. The commission referred to the fact that the applicant had led and actively participated in a collective remonstrance earlier on 26 August 2009 where the detainees refused to accept food provided by prison authorities. The commission noted that the applicant had been charged with attempted murder and had posed a threat to the security of the remand centre .

10. On 3 September 2009 the applicant appealed against the decision classifying him as a dangerous detainee.

11. On an unspecified date the Lublin Regional Court rejected the applicant ’ s appeal as lodged after the expiry of the seven-day time-limit.

12. On 20 November 2009 the commission reviewed and upheld its decision imposing the dangerous detainee regime on the applicant having regards to the negative opinion on his behaviour . The applicant failed to appeal against this decision.

13. On 18 February 2010 the Rzeszów Penitentiary Commission lifted the dangerous detainee status imposed on the applicant. The commission found that the reasons for imposition of the regime had ceased to exist. In particular, it referred to the fact that the applicant had “sustained positive attitude” and “made a revaluation of his previous behaviours ”.

4 . Particular aspects of the regime

14. The applicant has been detained in the Lublin Remand Centre and subsequently, in Rzeszów Prison. He was kept in a cell which has been constantly monitored via closed-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 officers.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

15. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of “ dangerous detainee ” regime are set out in the Court ’ s judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07 , §§ 105-117, 17 April 2012), and Horych v. Poland (no . 13621/08 , §§ 44-56, 17 April 2012).

COMPLAINTS

16. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on him amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and was in breach of this provision.

17. He also complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that the proceedings before the penitentiary commission were unfair and that he did not have an effective remedy t o appeal against its decisions.

THE LAW

Admissibility of the application

1. The parties ’ submissions

18. The Government first submitted that the application should be found inadmissible for the applicant ’ s abuse of his right to individual petition. In this respect they submitted that the applicant had misled the Court by providing untrue information that the dangerous detainee regime had been applied to him on 10 October 2008 and had not yet ended whereas it in fact had lasted 5 months and 23 days; between 26 August 2009 and 18 February 2010.

19. The Government further argued that the applicant had failed to make use of the available remedies in that he had failed to appeal in accordance with the procedural requirements against the decision of the Penitentiary C ommission imposing the dangerous detainee regime on him and that he had failed to appeal against a further decision extending his qualification. Thus, he had not effectively appealed against any of the decisions. They concluded that the application should be rejected for non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies.

20 . The applicant ’ s lawyer disagreed with both objections . He argued that the applicant had been treated in the same way when he was given the P-1/Z status and later, when he was classified as a dangerous detainee. As regards the Government ’ s objection concerning non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, h e submitted that the decisions of the commission could only be appealed on points of law and that an appeal would in any event be unsuccessful, because the decisions in questions had had relevant basis in the domestic law.

2. The Court ’ s assessment

21. The Court considers that it is not necessary to examine whether the applicant had abused his right to individual petition and whether he had exhausted all available domestic remedies since, in any event, the complaint under Article 3 of the Convention is inadmissible on other grounds.

22. In this respect the Court recalls that t he object of the six-month time ‑ limit under Article 35 § 1 is to promote legal certainty, by ensuring that cases raising issues under the Convention are dealt with in a reasonable time and that past decisions are not continually open to challenge. It marks out the temporal limits of supervision carried out by the organs of the Convention and signals to both individuals and State authorities the period beyond which such supervision is no longer possible (see, amongst other authorities, Walker v. the United Kingdom ( dec. ), no. 34979/97 , ECHR 2000-I).

23. In the present case the most recent decision concerning the applicant ’ s dangerous detainee regime was issued on 18 February 2010 when the regime was lifted (see paragraph 13 above). On that date the situation complained of by the applicant ended . The present application in which he raised complaints about the imposition and particular aspects of the regime as well as complaints about the alleged unfairness of the proceedings before the penitentiary commission and lack of an effective remedy against its decisions was lodged with the Court on 10 September 2012.

24. It follows that the present application is inadmissible as lodged outside of the six-month time-limit and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 15 October 2015 .

Fatoş Aracı Päivi Hirvelä Deputy Registrar President