FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 44027/12 Ryszard LIPCZYŃSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 14 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Ledi Bianku , President, Paul Mahoney , Krzysztof Wojtyczek , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 June 2012 ,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 22 April 2015 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant ’ s reply to that declaration,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Ryszard Lipczyński , is a Polish national, who was born in 1979 and is detained in Lublin . He was represented before the Court by Mr S. Kotuła , a lawyer practising in Lublin .

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

The application had been communicated to the Government .

A . The circumstances of the cas e

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

1 . Criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 24 May 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm and leading an organised criminal group.

On 29 May 2009 the applicant was detained in the Lublin Remand Centre.

On 30 December 2010 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant of attempted murder, causing grievous bodily harm and leading an organised criminal group and sentenced him to 14 years ’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.

On 11 October 2011 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. The judgment is final.

On 21 September 2012, in the second set of proceedings against the applicant, the Lublin District Court convicted the applicant of burglary and fraud. It appears that the applicant failed to appeal against this judgment.

2 . Imposition of t he so-called “dangerous detainee ” regime

On 15 July 2010 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (“the commission”) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. It relied on the suspicions against him, i.e. that he was charged with leading an organised criminal group and had committed serious offences with the use of firearms and extreme cruelty. The commission also referred to the applicant ’ s position in the prison subculture and to his serious lack of moral character ( wysoki stopień demoralizacji ) . The applicant appealed.

On 1 October 2010 the Lublin Regional Court upheld the decision. The court held that the decision had been lawful and justified.

Every three months the commission reviewed and upheld its decision. The commission referred to the reasons given in its decision of 15 July 2010. The motions for reviewing the decisions were justified by the nature of the offences of which the applicant had been convicted. Since 2 July 2012 the reasoning of the decisions referred to the applicant ’ s attempt to bribe a prison guard on 11 September 2008 by offering him PLN 3,000 in exchange for a watch and a telephone. The applicant had been convicted of this offence on 8 July 2011 by the Lublin Zachód District Court.

The applicant appealed against the commission ’ s decisions of 14 October 2010, 4 April and 3 October 2012. The Lublin Regional Court dismissed the appeals on 21 December 2010, 30 May and 26 November 2012 respectively.

On 26 June 2013, the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission lifted the “dangerous detainee” regime from the applicant. It relied on positive changes in the applicant ’ s conduct.

On the same day the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission classified the applicant as “a detainee in a closed prison regime”. The commission referred to the fact that the applicant had been convicted of leading an organised criminal group. It further referred to an incident in September 2008, referred to above, when the applicant offered a bribe to the prison officers in exchange for a mobile telephone.

On 2 October 2013 the applicant ’ s lawyer appealed against the commission ’ s decision of 26 September 2013 to extend the regime. On 18 November 2013 the Lublin Regional Court quashed the commission ’ s decision. Subsequently, on 22 November 2013 the commission lifted the “dangerous detainee” regime from the applicant.

3 . Particular aspects of the regime

The cell, including its sanitary facilities, was constantly monitored via closed-circuit television.

The applicant 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 and was required to carry out deep knee-bends.

B. Relevant domestic law and practic e

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of dangerous detainee status 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

The ap plicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about lengthy imposition of the dangerous detainee regime. H e also complain ed under Articles 6 and 13 that he had no effective remedy against the decisions of the Penitentiary Commission imposing on him the special regime and that the proceedings were unfair.

THE LAW

The applicant complained about various aspects of application of “dangerous detainee” regime to him . He relied on Article s 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention.

After the failure of attempts to reach a friendly settlement, by a letter of 16 April 2015 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

The declaration provided as follows:

“The Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the infringement of Article s 3 , 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention which resulted from the imposition on the applicant of the “dangerous detainee” regime from 15 July 2010 to 26 June 2013.

Simultaneously the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 20,000 (twenty thousand Polish zloty) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court ’ s case-law in similar cases ( ...). The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention . In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at the rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

The Government respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as “any other reason” justifying the striking out of the case of the Court ’ s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention ... ”

By a letter of 18 May 2015 , the applicant indicated that he was not satisfied with the terms of the unilateral declaration on the ground that the amount proposed by the Government was too low.

The Cour t re iterates th at Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“ for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

It also re iterates that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

To this end, the Cour t has examined the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI; WAZA Spółka z o.o . v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 28953/03 , 18 September 2007 ).

The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints about the violation of Article 3 as regards various aspects of application of the “dangerous detainee” regime (see, for example, Piechowicz and Horych , cited above).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government ’ s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ).

Finally, the Court emphasises that, should the Government fail to comply with the terms of their unilateral declaration, the application could be restored to the list in accordance with Article 37 § 2 of the Convention ( Josipović v. Serbia ( dec. ), no. 18369/07, 4 March 2008).

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government ’ s declaration under Article s 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.

Done in English and notified in writing on 8 October 2015 .

Fatoş Aracı Ledi Bianku Deputy Registrar President