Published on 14 November 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 28295/21 A.S. against Poland lodged on 13 May 2021 communicated on 25 October 2022

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns conditions of detention in the National Centre for the Prevention of Dissocial Behaviour in Gostynin (“the Centre” or “the Gostynin Centre”).

The applicant had been convicted of various offences, including murder and sexual assault of minors. Since 1992 he had been serving a penalty of 25 years of imprisonment which was due to come to an end on 18 April 2020. At the end of his term of imprisonment he was diagnosed with a personality disorder and started receiving psychological treatment.

On 13 August 2019 the Director of Goleniowo Prison requested the Szczecin Regional Court to declare the applicant a person representing a threat ( osoba stwarzająca zagrożenie ) within the meaning of the Act of 22 November 2013 on the Procedure regarding mentally disturbed persons representing a threat to life, health or sexual freedom of others (“the 2013 Act”) and to order his detention at the Gostynin Centre.

On 9 December 2020, the Szczecin Regional Court held that the applicant was a person representing a threat and placed him at the Gostynin Centre. The applicant appealed, but to no avail. On 4 May 2021 the applicant’s legal-aid lawyer informed him about the lack of grounds for lodging a cassation appeal. The applicant has remained at the Gostynin Centre since 18 April 2020.

Since the Centre had been established, various reports were produced on conditions in that facility, including the reports on the Ombudsman’s visits carried out on 26 June 2017 and 2 July 2018; the reports on the visits by the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture carried out from 18 to 20 February 2019 and from 8 to 10 March 2021; and the findings made in the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Poland carried out from 11 to 22 May 2017.

Pursuant to the regulation of the Minister of Health of 16 January 2014, the capacity of the Centre was sixty patients but according to the above-mentioned reports, the Centre quickly exceeded this number and in April 2021 there were ninety-three persons detained there.

The relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the communication report in the case of W v. Poland , no. 43562/17, published on HUDOC on 7 February 2022.

The applicant complains that the Gostynin Centre did not offer a proper therapeutic environment as required by Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention. In particular, he alleges that the Gostynin Centre does not resemble a therapeutic institution on account of poor living conditions, overcrowding, lack of individualised therapy, intimidating atmosphere with constant presence of guards equipped with special means of coercion such as truncheons, handcuffs and pepper sprays, obligation to wear handcuffs when leaving the Centre, lack of social activities and scarce possibilities of contact with the outside world.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

Article 3

1. Did the material conditions of the applicant’s detention at the Gostynin Centre, in particular the personal space available, general overcrowding and the constant presence of the guards, amount to inhuman or degrading treatment? Reference is made to: (1) the reports on the Ombudsman’s visits carried out on 26 June 2017 and 2 July 2018; (2) the reports on the visits by the National Mechanism for the Prevention of Torture carried out from 18 to 20 February 2019 and from 8 to 10 March 2021; and (3) the findings made in the report by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) on its visit to Poland carried out from 11 to 22 May 2017.

2. Having regard to the conditions prevailing at the Gostynin Centre, was it possible for the applicant to properly follow the therapeutic treatment offered in that facility? In the negative, did that situation amount to inhuman or degrading treatment (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 141 ‑ 148, 31 January 2019)?

Article 5 § 1 (e)

3. Having regard to the conditions prevailing at the Gostynin Centre and the purpose of his detention, was the applicant’s detention “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant ensured a proper therapeutic environment at the Gostynin Centre, as required by Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention (see Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 205-211, 31 January 2019)? Reference is made to the reports mentioned in question 1 above.