Communicated on 19 June 2018

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 29657/17 Sebastian BARAN against Poland lodged on 11 April 2017

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Sebastian Baran , is a Polish national who was born in 1983 and is currently detained in Cieszyn .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Period of the applicant ’ s detention

The applicant, who is detained on remand, was committed to Sosnowiec Remand Centre from 22 February 2012 to 21 May 2013 and from 27 March 2014 to 5 April 2014.

2. Conditions of the applicant ’ s detention

According to the applicant, the conditions in Sosnowiec Remand Centre were marked by inadequate sanitation and hygiene. The applicant submitted that he had been detained in badly ventilated, overcrowded, mould-infested and damp cells. He was provided with mattresses and blankets in poor condition. Moreover, the toilet annexes were not adequately separated from the living areas in the cells.

The domestic courts, in the proceedings summarised below, found that during his detention in Sosnowiec Remand Centre the applicant had been held in cells nos. 51 and 55 where the toilet annexes were separated from the cell by a fibreboard partition without a door; there was only a cloth curtain. Moreover, regarding cell no. 55, the court found that the fibreboard partition had not reached the ceiling.

3. Civil proceedings against the State

On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil action against the State for infringement of his personal rights, seeking compensation, inter alia, for his detention in unsatisfactory sanitary conditions in Sosnowiec Remand Centre. He claimed 120,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation (approximately 30,000 euros (EUR)). He referred to the fact that the cells in which he had been detained had been overcrowded, not properly ventilated or heated and that they had not offered sufficient light and access to electricity. He further submitted that the toilet annexes had not been sufficiently separated from the cells, which had made it impossible for him to have even a minimum of privacy.

On 25 February 2016 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s claim. The court established, referring to the evidence submitted by the defendant and the applicant, that the cells in Sosnowiec Remand Centre had been regularly renovated and equipped in accordance with the domestic provisions. The detainees were provided with mattresses, blankets, pillows and towels which were appropriate for use. The towels and bed linen were changed every two weeks. The detainees were entitled to a weekly shower and they had access to cold water in their cells. They had basic hygiene products at their disposal. The renovated cells had been properly ventilated and heated. Each cell was equipped with one or two windows which could be opened, and one or two lights. The court also established that, apart from cells nos. 51 and 55, the toilet annexes in Sosnowiec Remand Centre ’ s cells were separated from the cells by a wall up to the ceiling or a wall 1.4 m high, equipped with doors. In cells nos. 51 and 55 the toilet annexes were separated from the cell by a fibreboard partition without a door; there was only a cloth curtain. Moreover, regarding cell no. 55, the court found that the fibreboard partition had not reached the ceiling. Finally, the court held that during his detention in the Sosnowiec Remand Centre the applicant had never been detained in overcrowded cells; however, it admitted that he had been detained in cells nos. 51 and 55 which at that time had been badly ventilated, mould-infested and damp.

The court held that the State Treasury had not acted unlawfully and that there had been no intention to cause harm or damage to the applicant. Moreover, it held that temporary nuisance caused by the situation complained of did not exceed the normal difficulties caused by the very fact of being detained. Therefore the court found that the conditions in Sosnowiec Remand Centre had not been so harsh as to amount to a breach of personal rights.

The applicant appealed, arguing that the court had failed to establish the facts of the case correctly.

On 6 December 2016 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal. It fully agreed with the lower court ’ s findings and conclusions. In particular, it was of the view that the nuisance caused by the manner in which cells were fitted with toilet annexes, namely by way of fibreboard partitions, had not exceeded the normal difficulties caused by the very fact of serving a prison sentence.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice governing conditions of detention in Poland and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that the conditions of their detention were inadequate are set out in the Court ’ s pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05), adopted on 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§ 45-88 respectively). More recent developments are described in the Court ’ s decision in the case of Łatak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) adopted on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 25-54).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that he was a victim of degrading treatment during his detention in Sosnowiec Remand Centre, on account of the bad sanitary conditions in cells where he was detained on remand. The toilet annexes were not properly separated from the cells and did not provide for even a minimum of privacy.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Have the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention disclosed lack of respect for the applicant ’ s private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

Reference is made to the manner in which cells nos. 51 and 55 of Sosnowiec Remand Centre, where the applicant was detained on remand from 21 May 2012 to 23 May 2012, from 19 July 2012 to 11 October 2012 and from 18 March 2013 to 20 May 2013, were at the material time fitted with toilet annexes and to the resulting lack of privacy (see Szafrański v. Poland , no. 17249/12, §§ 37-41, 15 December 2015).

2. Do the facts described in question no. 1 constitute a violation of Article 3 of the Convention in so far as it prohibits degrading treatment?