Communicated on 22 February 2017

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 74683/13 Dariusz PAKIEŁA against Poland lodged on 27 March 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

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

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

The applicant has been serving a prison sentence in several prisons.

Between 26 June and 10 July 2013 he was detained in W ł oc ł awek Prison and between 10 July and 25 July he was detained in Ł owicz Prison. He was served a meat-free diet in both prisons on account of his religious dietary requirements.

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

On 26 July 2013 he asked the prison governor if he could be served meat-free meals on account of his religious dietary requirements. He explained that he was a vegetarian by reason of his belief. His letter was allegedly returned to him by the authorities.

On 29 July 2013 the applicant asked the P Å‚ ock District Prosecutor to institute criminal proceedings against the employees of P Å‚ ock Prison on account of their refusal to provide him with a meat-free diet. He alleged that despite having requested on several occasions to be provided with a meat ‑ free diet, he had received meals containing meat products.

On 30 August 2013 the P Å‚ ock District Prosecutor refused his request. The prosecutor noted that there was no information in the prison records that the applicant had ever asked to be served a vegetarian diet. Furthermore, the copy of his letter of 26 July 2013 had not been stamped or otherwise marked, which would have indicated that it had indeed been submitted to the authorities.

The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal with the P Å‚ ock District Court.

On 14 October 2013 the P Å‚ ock District Court dismissed his appeal, repeating the grounds referred to by the prosecutor.

On the same date, the applicant was informed by the prison governor that his request to be provided with a vegetarian diet had been granted.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention that, contrary to his religious beliefs, he was not provided with a vegetarian diet during his detention in P Å‚ ock Prison.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the State ’ s alleged failure to provide the applicant with special food in conformity with his convictions constitute an “interference” with the applicant ’ s freedom of religion within the meaning of Article 9 of the Convention, or did it constitute a breach of its positive obligations under that provision (see Jakóbski v. Poland , no. 18429/06, 7 December 2010, and Vartic v. Romania (no. 2) , no. 14150/08 , 17 December 2013 )?

2. Did the facts of the present case also give rise to an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life? If so, was there a violation of his rights under Article 8 of the Convention?