Communicated on 27 August 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 46366/12 Wiesł aw BERECKI against Poland lodged on 10 July 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Wiesław Berecki, is a Polish national, who was born in 1975.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

Between 9 October 2007 and 17 July 2008 the applicant was detained in Chełm Prison. He alleges that the conditions of detention were inhuman and degrading due to overcrowding, bad sanitary conditions, the fact that he was kept in cells with smoking inmates and also on account of lack of intimacy and insufficient access to sport and cultural facilities.

On 22 June 2010 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State Treasury and Chełm Prison seeking 100,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately EUR 25,000) in compensation for violation of his personal rights on account of his detention in overcrowded cells, bad sanitary conditions, lack of hot water, insufficient means to wash and dry his underwear, inadequate cell equipment and the fact that he had been put in cells with smoking inmates. He submitted that the showers did not work and that he had not had reasonable access to sport and cultural activities.

The Lublin Regional Court examined the claim under Articles 23 and 24 of the Civil Code ( Kodeks cywilny ) in conjunction with Article 448 of that code and further under Article 248 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences ( Kodeks karny wykonawczy ) and dismissed it b y a judgment of 24 August 2011. The court established that the prison was overcrowded during his detention as there were less than 3 square metres per person. However, this overcrowding fluctuated in time and the prison director had informed the penitentiary court about it as required by law. He had also been taking measures to relieve the situation by placing prisoners in cells which became less crowded as a result of certain prisoners being transferred to other prisons or being released. Moreover, at the material time the overcrowding was lawful. On 26 May 2008 the Constitutional Court had held that Article 248 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences allowing for temporary placing prisoners in overcrowded cells was in breach of the Constitution. However, it postponed the date on which this provision would lose its binding force which had ultimately happened on 6 December 2009, after the expiry of the period covered by the applicant ’ s compensation claim.

Otherwise, the equipment in cells complied with applicable legal requirements. It was possible to open the windows and they had not been covered by view-obstructing devices. There was gravitational ventilation in the cells. The prisoners received three meals per day including one warm meal. In each cell there was a separate washroom and toilet with running cold water. The prisoners had access to hot showers once a week, had access to sports activities, including a workout room and a leisure room. The applicant ’ s submissions that he had been placed in cells with smoking inmates had not been confirmed by the evidence gathered during the proceedings. In sum, the fact that the applicant was detained in overcrowded cells was not of its own sufficient to establish inhuman or degrading treatment.

The applicant submitted an appeal.

By a decision of 7 November 2011 the court summoned him to rectify formal shortcomings of the appeal by specifying the value of litigation, submitting a copy of the appeal and by submitting pleadings rectifying the formal shortcomings of his appeal.

By pleadings submitted to the court on 23 November 2011 the applicant specified the value of litigation and submitted a carbon-copy of his hand ‑ written appeal.

His appeal was rejected on 24 November 2011. The Lublin Regional Court noted that the copy of the appeal was not identical to the appeal he had submitted previously.

The applicant appealed on 4 December 2011. He submitted that he had written the appeal by hand. He had subsequently submitted the copy of the appeal he had at his disposal. It was a carbon copy. He argued that the only difference between the original and the copy was that only a couple of closing sentences of the appeal were missing. He requested the court to accept his appeal as he had prepared it the best way he could in his circumstances.

The court summoned him to pay the court fee for the appeal in the amount of PLN 1,000. The applicant requested to be granted exemption from the court fee arguing that he was serving the prison sentence and did not have sufficient means at his disposal.

On 26 January 2012 the Lublin Regional Court allowed his request for exemption.

By a decision of 12 March 2012 the Lublin Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal against a decision to reject his appeal against the judgment on the merits. The court noted that the original appeal was not identical to the copy submitted by the applicant, which made it impossible for the court to proceed with his case.

No indication was made of what this difference consisted of.

B. Relevant domestic law

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).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 3 that he was detained in overcrowded cells in Chełm Prison and that the general conditions of his detention were poor and inadequate.

He further complains in essence under Article 6 of the Convention that he was deprived of access to the appellate court as his appeal was rejected.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the applicant ’ s detention amount to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the alleged overcrowding and inadequate living and sanitary conditions in Chełm Prison between 9 October 2007 and 17 July 2008?

2. Was the applicant denied access to court contrary to Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the fact that the civil courts rejected the applicant ’ s appeal against the first-instance judgment of the civil court.