Communicated on 7 July 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 5136/11 Kamil PRUS against Poland lodged on 6 December 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Kamil Prus, is a Polish national, who was born in 1987 and is currently detained in Lublin Remand Centre .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. The criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 1 December 2005 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand. On an unspecified later date he was convicted by a court and started serving a sentence of imprisonment.

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

On 5 November 2010 the Opole Lubelskie Prison Penitentiary Commission imposed on the applicant the so-called “dangerous detainee” regime. The commission held that the applicant had been the leader or an active participant in an expected collective remonstrance in Opole Lubelskie Prison (Article 88a §2 (2a) of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences) as the detainees refused to accept food provided by the prison authorities. The Commission also considered that the applicant had a high degree of depravity.

On 18 January 2011 the Opole Lubelskie Prison Penitentiary Commission rejected the applicant ’ s appeal and his request for leave to examine it outside the time-limit.

Subsequently, the applicant was transferred to the Lublin Remand Centre.

On 3 February 2011 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission reviewed and upheld the regime. The applicant appealed.

On 4 April 2011 the Lublin Regional Court dismissed the appeal. The court referred to the reasons given in the decision of 5 November 2010. The court held that the decision had been lawful and justified.

The applicant was classified as a “dangerous detainee” until 28 April 2011.

On 3 March 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Lublin Regional Inspectorate of Prison Service. He complained about difficulties in access to educational activities in the Lublin Remand Centre. The authorities dismissed the appeal and held that educational activities had not been organised for dangerous prisoners.

On an unspecified date in 2011 the applicant notified the police about his allegedly unlawful classification as a “dangerous prisoner” on 5 November 2010, i.e. that the authorities of Opole Lubelskie Prison had exceeded their powers while imposing the “dangerous prisoner” regime on him. On 29 April 2011 the Opole Lubelskie District Prosecutor refused to open an investigation in the case. The prosecutor held that no offence had been committed.

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, §§ 110-117, 17 April 2012), and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 49-56, 17 April 2012).

In particular Article 88a § 2 (2a) of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences allows imposing the regime on a convicted person who during his detention posed a danger to the security of a remand centre because he:

“a) was the leader or an active participant in a collective remonstrance in a prison or a remand centre,”

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime and ineffectiveness of his appeals to the court in that the appeal was limited to points of law only. He complains about routine personal checks, surveillance cameras, lack of vocational courses and being obliged to wear humiliating red uniforms. In addition the applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention about lack of public hearing before the commission and that he and his lawyer were absent when the commission was giving its decisions.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant from 5 November 2010 to 28 April 2011, 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 copies of the judgments given in the criminal proceedings against the applicant and the decision of the Penitentiary Commission of 5 November 2010.