Communicated on 4 March 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 9635/13 Artur DEJNEK against Poland lodged on 14 January 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Artur Dejnek , is a Polish national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Lublin .

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

A. The applicant ’ s arrest and criminal proceedings against him

On 10 October 2008 the applicant was arrested under the suspicion of the attempted murder of his brother, K.D.

On 11 October 2008 the applicant was remanded in custody in the Lublin Remand Centre.

On 25 March 2009 a bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Lublin Regional Court.

Between 17 November 2009 and 31 March 2010 the applicant was detained in the Rzeszów Remand Centre. On the latter date he was transported back to Lublin.

On 12 December 2011 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 10 years ’ imprisonment.

The applicant appealed.

On 21 August 2012 the Lublin Court of Appeal upheld the conviction.

On 7 December 2012 the applicant ’ s lawyer lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.

On 10 June 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded.

B . The applicant ’ s detention and strip searches

The applicant was detained under an ordinary security regime. He was not classified as a “dangerous detainee”. He claimed that during his detention he had frequently and routinely been subjected to a personal check ( kontrola osobista ) by the guards of the Rzeszów and the Lublin Remand Centre s . According to his submissions , he had to strip naked in front of guard s and bend over to show his anus and penis . On some occasions he had to strip naked in the presence of 2 to 6 prison guards. The applicant submitted that he felt humiliated each time he had undergone a personal check.

From the documents submitted by the applicant it emerges that he was ordered to strip naked and subjected to personal searches several times on the dates indicated below.

On 4 February 2011 the applicant was visited by members of his family. After the visit he was ordered to undergo a personal check. He complained and on 17 April 2012 the Director of the Lublin Remand Centre found that the check had been performed in accordance with the law and that the applicant had not been debased or humiliated. The Director found also that on 4 February 2011, while receiving a visit from a member of his family, the applicant gave the visitor a piece of paper with some notes on it “which constituted a violation of discipline and order”.

On 29 April, 2 May and 21 May 2012 the applicant complained about several body searches, including a body search on 28 April 2011. His complaints were examined on 29 June 2012 by the Director of the Lublin Remand Centre who found that the personal checks had been carried out in accordance with the law.

On 5 June 2012 the applicant underwent another body search. His cell was also searched. He complained to the Director of the Director of the Remand Centre who on 9 August 2012 dismissed the complaint finding that the searches had been performed in accordance with the law and with respect for the applicant ’ s rights and dignity. The relevant part of the Director ’ s decision reads as follows:

“ the guards did not use vulgar words and did not debase you. Nobody hit you. The objects which were inspected were not thrown around. Nothing was damaged during the search” .

On 25 August 2012 the applicant was ordered to undergo another body search. He complained to the Director of the Lublin Detention Centre who, on 30 October 2012 replied that the body search had been in accordance with the law and found his complaint ill-founded.

On 3 November 2012 after his family had visited him in prison, the applicant was again ordered to undergo a personal check. He submitted that on that day he had had intense pain in his spine and could barely stand. Therefore, he refused to undergo the search. Subsequently, a chief prison officer was called. When he came with four other guards, the applicant was subjected to the personal check. He was ordered to strip naked and to do knee bends, to show his penis and open his mouth. However since he had pain in his spine he performed the guards ’ orders “in a dilatory manner”. Therefore he was punished with a disciplinary penalty of receiving family visits behind a glass screen, with no direct contact for two months. The applicant complained about this event, but his complaint was dismissed by the Director of the Lublin Remand Centre on 20 November 2012.

On 12 September 2013 the Lublin Regional Court, in view of the applicant ’ s state of health and his neurological and orthopaedic problems, granted him leave to undergo an operation outside prison. The applicant was supposed to return to prison on 12 January 2014.

C . Relevant domestic law and practice

Article 116 § 2 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences defines the “personal check” as follows:

“A personal check means an inspection of the body and checking of clothes, underwear and footwear as well as [other] objects in a [prisoner ’ s] possession. The inspection of the body, checking of clothes and footwear shall be carried out in a room, in the absence of third parties and persons of the opposite sex and shall be effected by persons of the same sex.”

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that during his detention in the various detention centres he was systematically strip-searched after visits with his family .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the numerous and systematic body searches which the applicant had to undergo in the detention centres amount to inhuman and/or degrading treatment in violation of Article 3 of the Convention? Reference is made in particular to the body search on 3 November 2012 performed in the presence of five prison guards and in spite of the applicant ’ s pain in his spine. What were the reasons for the body searches and orders to strip naked?

2 . Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private life, within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?

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