Communicated on 31 January 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 17705/11 Piotr Paweł PORADA against Poland lodged on 6 June 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Piotr Paweł Porada , is a Polish national, who was born in 1984. He is currently detained in the Szczecin Remand Centre.

The circumstances of the case

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

1. Application for temporary release in order to become a donor

The applicant has been serving a prison sentence since October 2010. On 1 December 2010 his mother was diagnosed with acute leukaemia. On 31 December 2010 the applicant filed an application for leave from serving his sentence ( przerwa w wykonaniu kary ) with the Łódź Regional Court. He wished to donate bone marrow to his mother. His application was received by the Łódź Regional Court on 7 January 2011. On 17 and 18 January 2011 the applicant requested the Regional Court to treat his application as very urgent. On 22 January 2011 he requested the Minister of Justice to accelerate the proceedings. On 24 January 2011 the President of the Penitentiary Division of the Regional Court fixed the date of a court session for 10 February 2011.

On 4 February 2011 his mother died. The applicant subsequently withdrew his application for leave and the Regional Court discontinued the proceedings on 10 February 2011.

The applicant submitted that he could have been the only potential donor for his mother.

On 2 March 2011 the Central Administration of Prison Service ( Centralny ZarzÄ…d SÅ‚użby WiÄ™ziennej ) informed the applicant that pursuant to the Ordinance of the Minister of Health of 18 April 2005 on conditions of collecting blood ( Rozporz Ä… dzenie Ministra Zdrowia w sprawie warunk ó w pobierania krwi i dawc ó w krwi ) persons deprived of liberty in penitentiary establishments could not become donors of bone marrow in view of t he risk of infection with blood ‑ transmitted diseases. Such person s could become donors not earlier than 6 months after they had been released.

2. Conjugal visits

The applicant received a number of supervised visits from his fiancée. These took place in a common room and in the presence of a prison guard. In March 2011 he complained to the penitentiary judge that he could not receive a conjugal visit at the Łódź Remand Centre. On 7 April 2011 the penitentiary judge informed the applicant that the Łódź Remand Centre did not have a suitable room for unsupervised visits referred to in Article 138 § 1(3) of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences.

Subsequently, the applicant was transferred to the Łódź Prison. On 8 April 2011 the applicant ’ s fiancée requested the Governor of the Łódź Prison to grant the applica nt an unsupervised visit. On 19 April 2011 the Governor informed the fiancée that the applicant had received such a visit in April 2011.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains that he was prevented from undergoing a medical examination to assess his suitability for becoming a donor of bone marrow for his mother and consequently from becoming a donor. His mother suffered from acute leukaemia and the applicant wished to save her life. The applicant further complains about the domestic regulations which prevented prisoners from becoming a donor. The applicant also alleges that his application for temporary release was dealt with in a dilatory manner and that his requests for urgent examination of his application were to no avail. He invokes Articles 1 and 2 of the Convention and the right to good administration.

2. In his letter of 6 March 2011 the applicant complains about the fact that he could not receive conjugal visits from his fiancée.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

With regard to the application for release in order to become a donor

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life , within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to: 1) the manner in which the Łódź Regional Court dealt with the applicant ’ s application for temporary release and 2) the general ban on do nating bone marrow by prisoners.

2. If so, was that interference justified in terms of Article 8 § 2?

With regard to the conjugal visits

3. H as there been a violation of the appli cant ’ s right to respect for his private and family life or, alternatively, a failure to secure that right, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention?