Communicated on 7 July 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 62395/12 Artur DEJNEK against Poland lodged on 10 September 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Artur Dejnek, is a Polish national, who was born in 1976 and is currently detained in the Opole Lubelskie Detention Centre.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 10 October 2008 the applicant was arrested on unspecified charges and detained on remand in the Lublin Remand Centre. He was subsequently convicted on an unknown later date.

2. Imposition of the so-called “dangerous detainee” regime

On 10 October 2008 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (“the commission”) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”.

The commission reviewed, and upheld its decision classifying the applicant as a “dangerous detainee” on several occasions. In particular, in its decision of 13 June 2012 the commission relied on a negative opinion on the applicant ’ s progress in rehabilitation. The applicant appealed against the decision in question.

On 13 August 2012 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The court held that the decision had been lawful.

On an unspecified date in 2012 the applicant appealed against the commission ’ s periodic appraisal of his progress in rehabilitation. In reply, on 23 July 2012 the Governor of the Lublin Remand Centre refused to entertain the appeal. The applicant lodged a further appeal with the Lublin Regional Court. On 27 August 2012 the court discontinued the proceedings holding that the commission ’ s periodic appraisal of the applicant ’ s progress in rehabilitation was not a decision and could not be examined by the court.

On an unknown date the applicant was transferred to the Opole Lubelskie Prison.

On 22 January 2013 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against the Opole Lubelskie Prison Penitentiary Commission on the extension of the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on him.

On 22 January 2013 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal against the Opole Lubelskie Prison Penitentiary Commission upholding the regime. The court held that the decision had been issued in accordance with the relevant provisions of domestic law.

The applicant has been still classified as a “dangerous detainee”.

3. Particular aspects of the regime

The applicant has been kept in a cell which has been constantly monitored via closed-circuit television. He was subjected to a body search every time he left and entered the cell, which in practice meant that he had to strip naked in front of prison officers. No educational or cultural activities were available.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of “dangerous detainee” regime are set out in the Court ’ s judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 105-117, 17 April 2012), and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 44-56, 17 April 2012).

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention that the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on him amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment and was in breach of this provision.

2. He also complains under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention that the proceedings before the penitentiary commission were unfair and that he did not have an effective remedy to appeal against its decisions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant from 10 October 2008 to present, has he been subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention? The parties are requested to refer in their observations to the leading judgment of Piechowicz v. Poland , no. 20071/07, 17 April 2012.

2. Having regard to the applicant ’ s complaint about a lack of fair trial in the proceedings before the penitentiary commission and a lack of an effective remedy against the decisions of the penitentiary commission to impose and extend the dangerous detainee regime:

a) Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the case of Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 107, ECHR 2009.

b) Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy as required by Article 13 of the Convention?

The Government are invited to submit:

- a copy of the decision of 10 October 2008 imposing the “dangerous detainee” regime on the applicant and subsequent decisions extending the application of the regime ;

- copies of judgments relating to criminal proceedings against the applicant.