Published on 14 November 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 15624/20 J.C. against Poland lodged on 13 March 2020 communicated on 24 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”).

In the past the applicant was convicted multiple times for various offences, including rape and involuntary manslaughter. Most recently, he was serving a sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment. His prison term was due to come to an end on 1 February 2018.

During his imprisonment, the applicant was diagnosed with paedophilia. On an unspecified date the Director of Sztum Prison Requested the Gdańsk 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”). He also sought to order the applicant’s detention at the Gostynin Centre.

On 8 January 2018 the Gdańsk Regional Court decided to subject the applicant to preventive supervision and ordered him to attend psychotherapy. In February 2018 the applicant’s prison term came to an end and he was released. On 22 June 2018 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal altered the first instance judgment and decided to place the applicant at the Gostynin Centre. On 3 October 2019 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the applicant’s cassation appeal. The applicant has been detained at the Gostynin Centre since 22 June 2018.

During his detention the Director of Gostynin Centre granted the applicant a permission to use a mobile phone. The applicant claims that his family lives abroad and is unable to visit him personally at the Centre. The only possible means for the applicant to maintain the contact with them was by using his mobile phone. On 5 August 2019 the permission was revoked. The applicant appealed against this decision to the Płock Regional Court, but to no avail. On 27 November 2019 the Płock Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request to provide written grounds for that decision; according to the court such request was unavailable.

The applicant suffers from cardiac problems after a heart failure and was recommended to carry out outdoor activities.

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 abovementioned 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 about his detention at the Gostynin Centre. He claims that the Centre does not resemble a therapeutic institution on account of lack of an individual therapy plan, poor living conditions, lack of space, limited outdoor activities as well as intimidating and demeaning treatment by the authorities.

Referring to the Article 8 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains that by revoking the permission to use a mobile telephone the Director of the Centre interfered with his right to respect for his family life.

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)

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.

Article 8 § 1

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention on account of revoking his right to possess a mobile phone at the Centre?

2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in pursuit of a legitimate aim in terms of Article 8 § 2? Reference is made to the fact that the applicant did not receive any written decision giving reasons for revoking his right to possess a mobile phone (see Wegera v. Poland , no. 141/07, § 74-75, 19 January 2010; Gradek v. Poland , no. 39631/06, § 47 ‑ 48, 8 June 2010; NurzyÅ„ski v. Poland , no. 46859/06, § 41-42, 21 December 2010).