Communicated on 9 March 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 14900/15 Kamil LEKSZYCKI against Poland lodged on 11 March 2015

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Kamil Lekszycki , is a Polish national, who was born in 1986 and is detained in Łę czyca . He is rep resented before the Court by Mr P. Rał , a lawyer practising in Warszawa.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. The conditions of the applicant ’ s detention

According to the applicant, throughout the entire period of his detention in the Łódź Remand Centre, the Łódź Prison, the Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre, the Strzelin Prison, the Wrocław Prison no. 2, and the Garbalin Prison was placed in overcrowded cells in which the space per person had been below the Polish statutory minimum standard of 3 m2.

Other aspects of living and sanitary conditions were inadequate. The sanitary corners were insufficiently separated with a piece of drape and plywood. The cells were not sufficiently ventilated or lit, and were therefore humid and fungous . The blankets and mattresses were dirty and damaged. The applicant added that he had no access to hot water and that the adequate medical treatment was not provided to him.

The remaining elements of the living and sanitary conditions and the quality of food met the statutory standards. It appears that the applicant had one hot shower per week and one hour of an outdoor exercise per day.

2. The applicant ’ s civil action against the State Treasury

On 14 August 2014 the applicant who was represented pro bono by a lawyer from the LEX NOSTRA Foundation in Warsaw lodged a civil action with the Warsaw Regional Court against the State Treasury for infringement of his personal rights due to inadequate conditions of his detention in the Łódź Remand Centre, the Łódź Prison, the Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre, the Strzelin Prison, the Wrocław Prison no. 2, the Garbalin Prison.

The applicant sought PLN 60,000 (~EUR 15,000) in compensation, PLN 5,000 (~ EUR 1,250) in payment to a charity and an apology to be published on the website of the Lex Nostra Foundation. He also asked the court to order the defendant to produce documents regarding details of his detention such as dates of detention and the surface of each cell where he was detained and his medical record.

3. Application for exemption from the court fees

The applicant applied for exemption from the court fees related to his legal action under Article 102 of the Law of 28 July 2005 on Court Fees in Civil Proceedings.

At the time of lodging the civil action the applicant was detained in the Plock Prison. The applicant presented a certificate of the Governor of the Opole Remand Centre confirming that the prison did not employ him due to the lack of work places and that the applicant had PLN 942.76 (approx. EUR 235) on his account but could not use it for his own purposes as it was kept in the so-called “iron savings box” ( żelazna kasa ). Furthermore, he did not have any valuable deposit, and received financial help from someone outside the prison. Part of money he received he spent in the prison canteen as the prison did not provide all his basic needs. The applicant ’ s prison account indicated PLN 942.76 in total but PLN 0.00 for his own use.

On 17 October 2014 the court officer ( referendarz s Ä… dowy ) at the Warsaw Regional Court, (case no. III C 1022/14) decided to exempt the applicant from the court fees in part higher than PLN 150 (approx. EUR 36) and dismissed the remainder of his application. The court stated that he had been receiving money from outside of the prison and was able to save some funds for court fees in the amount indicated by the court officer.

The applicant lodged a complaint against the court officer ’ s decision ( skarga na orzeczenie referendarza sadowego ). He sought to be fully exempted from the court fees. The lawyer submitted that the court had not taken into account the applicant ’ s situation as a whole and had examined the evidence provided erroneously .

On 12 November 2014 the Warsaw Regional Court decided to uphold the decision made by the court officer. It underlined that mandatory payment of court fees by the claimant was one of the principles of the civil proceedings and exemption from the court fees was an exception that could be granted only in special circumstances. The court could not only look into the mathematics of the material situation of the applicant but also into his diligence in securing funds for a future civil action. Contrary to the certificate of financial situation of the applicant issued by the authorities of the Opole Remand Centre, the court stated that the applicant could have used the funds to pay court fee in the amount of PLN 150.

As the applicant did not make the payment of PLN 150, on 8 December 2014 the Warsaw Regional Court decided to return his civil action.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning general rules governing the 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).

The rules governing the right to access to a court were set in the Court ’ s judgments, inter alia, Kreuz v. Poland , no . 28249/95, §§ 58-67, ECHR 2001 VI; Jedamski and Jedamska v. Poland , no. 73547/01, §§ 60 67, 26 July 2005.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 about the inadequate conditions of his detention in the Łódź Remand Centre, the Łódź Prison, the Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre, the Strzelin Prison, the Wrocław Prison no. 2, and the Garbalin Prison.

He also complains under 6 § 1 of the Convention about the fact that he was deprived of his right of access to a court due to the fact that he was not fully exempted from the court fees.

QUESTIONs TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the fact that the applicant was deprived of his liberty in the Łódź Remand Centre, the Łódź Prison, the Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre, the Strzelin Prison, the Wrocław Prison no. 2, and the Garbalin Prison in overcrowded cells, was he subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention?

2. The Government are invited to produce the documents regarding the conditions of the applicant ’ s detention in the Łódź Remand Centre, the Łódź Prison, the Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre, the Strzelin Prison, the Wrocław Prison no. 2, and the Garbalin Prison.

3. Was the applicant ’ s right of access to a court guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention violated in the present case in connection with the refusal to exempt him fully from the court fees?