FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 62637/11 Tomasz DZIEDZIC against Poland lodged on 24 July 2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Tomasz Dziedzic , is a Polish national, who was born in 1969 and lives in Krakow .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Detention of the applicant ’ s wife

On 24 November 2006 the applicant ’s wife (Ms Skowronska ‑ Dziedzic , who lodged an application, no. 32420/07) was arrested. At this time the applicant ’ s wife was nine months pregnant.

On 27 November 2006 the applicant asked for a possibility to visit his wife in detention centre. The prosecutor refused. A subs equent request was refused on 5 December 2006.

On 6 December 2006 the applicant decided to take a trip to the detention centre (550 km away) in order to bring some necessary items for his wife and his baby. He was informed that his wife was labour in hospital. He went to the hospital; however the officers present prevented him from seeing his wife.

On 7 December 2006 when the applicant called the detention centre, he was informed that his daughter had been born. He applied again for the possibility to visit his wife and daughter. He was informed that nothing had changed and the prosecutor would still refuse his request, however apparently the prosecutor agreed with the principal of the detention centre that the applicant would be allowed to see his daughter for one ho ur and to be given her picture.

On 8 December 2006 the applicant again travelled to the detention centre, where he was allowed to spend only 30 minutes with his daughter because allegedly the baby was to be examined by the doctor. The visit was supervised by an officer. He was informed that there was no possibility t o have a picture of the baby.

Apparently he was allowed to see his daughter only once more.

On 30 January 2007 the applicant ’ s wife was released from detention. In the course of the detention, the applicant was never allowed to see his wife.

2. Letters to the Ombudsman and State Prosecutor

On 8 January 2007 the applicant sent a letter to the Polish Ombudsman informing him about his wife ’ s ordeal and about the fact that he was not allowed to visit her.

On 23 January 2007 the Ombudsman replied and referred to the statements of the State Prosecutor. The Ombudsman informed the applicant that the State Prosecutor did not find the measures applied in respect of the applicant ’ s wife necessary. Additionally the State Prosecutor expressed his opinion that refusal of family visits was entirely unfounded.

On 2 February 2007 the Office of the State Prosecutor sent a letter to the applicant. He gave the opinion that the decision to refuse family visits was unfounded. As to the applicant ’ s rights to see his daughter, he was informed that this question was outside the prosecutor ’ s competence.

On 25 February 2007 the Ombudsman sent another letter to the applicant. By virtue of this letter the applicant was informed that in his wife ’ s file there was a prosecutor ’ s memo that the prosecutor would not prevent contacts between the baby and other persons. However the Ombudsman explained that the restrictions encountered by the applicant might have been caused by administrative problems such as the necessity of finding a person to be responsible for the arrangements of preparing a suitable room and bringing the baby .

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning visits by detainees ’ families to detention centres are described in the Court ’ s judgment in Mazgaj v. Poland , no. 41656/02, §§ 33 ‑ 36, 21 September 2010.

The procedure on admitting children to detention centres is provided for by the Ordinance o f the Minister of Justice of 17 September 2003.

1. The Ordinan ce of Minister of Justice of 17 September 2003

Section 3

“5. Child ’ s placement in the [detention centre] requires father ’ s consent, unless he is deprived of his parental rights. [ ... ]”

The Ordinance does not contain any provisions regarding fathers ’ rights to visit children placed in detention centres with their mothers.

2. European Parliament resolution of 13 March 2008 on the particular situation of women in prison and the impact of the imprisonment of parents on social and family life (2007/2116(INI))

“25. [The European Parliament] .[ ... ] recommends also that, in the case of minors residing in prison, the other parent should be able to exercise his or her parental authority.”

3. Parliamentary Assembly Recommendation 1469(2000) Mothers and babies in prison.

“5. In view of the adverse effects of imprisonment of mothers on babies the Assembly recommends that the Committee of Ministers invite member states:

[ ... ]

v. to ensure that fathers have more flexible visiting rights so that the child may spend a little time with its parents;”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that his right to family life was not respected as he was deprived of a possibility to visit his detained wife and his new ‑ born baby.

The applicant complains also under Article 13 that there was no effective remedy against the prosecutor ’ s decisions regarding family visits.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the restrictions placed on the applicant ’ s contacts with his wife and daughter violate his right to respect for his family life, guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, in particular were the restrictions of the applicant ’ s contacts with his daughter in accordance with law as provided for by Article 8 (2) of the Convention?