Communicated on 16 May 2019

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 11148/18 Bartłomiej BOJAR against Poland lodged on 14 February 2018

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Bartłomiej Bojar , is a Polish national who was born in 1973 and is detained in Strzelce Opolskie Prison.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

Since 10 October 2002 the applicant has been serving a sentence of thirty years ’ imprisonment. In December 2013 he was placed in the Strzelce Opolskie Prison. On 5 March 2014 he started working for a company located outside the prison.

1. First strip search

On 29 August 2017 during a general control of the prison the applicant was subjected to a strip search in his cell. During the strip search various prison guards were entering and leaving the cell.

On 11 September 2017 the applicant complained about it.

On 14 November 2017 the Director of the Regional Prison Service Inspectorate ( Dyrektor Okręgowego Inspektoratu Służby Więziennej , “the Director”) informed the applicant that his complaint had been unfounded.

The applicant lodged a further complaint with the Opole Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) which, on 12 January 2018, replied that the Director ’ s reply “remained in force”.

2. Second strip search

On 11 September 2017 the applicant was strip-searched after he finished his shift at work.

The applicant lodged a complaint with the Director, in which he argued that there were no grounds to perform the strip search and alleged that the strip searches were performed systematically on randomly chosen working prisoners after the end of their shifts. On 22 November 2017 the Director informed him that the complaint had been unfounded. The applicant lodged an appeal with the Opole Regional Court which, on 21 December 2017, refused to examine it. The court found that since the Director had not issued any decision, there had been no right to an appeal to a court.

3. Third strip search

On 19 October 2017 the applicant was subjected to a strip search after he had finished his shift. During the strip search a person who was not wearing a uniform and who was unknown to the applicant was present, as well as other prison guards who did not perform the strip search of the applicant.

The applicant lodged a complaint with the Director who, on 19 December 2017, informed the applicant that it had been unfounded.

4. Fourth and fifth strip searches

The next strip searches took place on 3 June 2018, after the applicant had received a visit, and on 15 June 2018, after he had finished his shift.

The applicant lodged a complaint with the Director. In a reply, the Director informed him that it had not been possible to confirm whether the strip searches took place, because there had been no official register of performed strip searches.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning strip searches are set out in the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 105-117, 17 April 2012).

On 21 January 2016 the Ombudsman ( Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich ) lodged with the Constitutional Court ( Trybunał Konstytucyjny ) a request to examine compatibility with the Constitution of the provisions of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences in so far as they do not provide for issuing of a decision ordering a strip search of a prisoner. The case is pending under no. K 5/16.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention about unjustified strip searches and lack of an effective remedy against them.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. The applicant was subjected to strip searches on five occasions between August 2017 and June 2018. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

2. Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his complaint under Article 8 of the Convention, as required by Article 13 of the Convention? Reference is made to the allegations that the authorities did not issue any reasoned decision ordering strip searches of the applicant and that he had no right to lodge an appeal to a court.