Published on 14 March 2022

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 74254/17 J.T. against Poland lodged on 9 October 2017 communicated on 25 February 2022

STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. The applicant, Mr J.T. is a Polish national, who was born in 1946. He is currently detained at the Gostynin Centre.

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

3. In 1996 the applicant was convicted of the rape and murder of an eleven-year-old girl and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment. He served his sentence in an ordinary prison (lastly in Koronowo) and was due to be released on 6 January 2016. On 26 November 2015 the applicant was transferred to a therapeutic wing of Sztum prison.

4. On an unspecified date in November 2015 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”) and to order his detention at the Gostynin Centre. He also applied for an interim injunction ordering the applicant to be confined to the Centre for the duration of the proceedings.

5. On 7 December 2015 the Gdańsk Regional Court granted the interim injunction. The applicant’s interlocutory appeal was dismissed on 21 December 2015.

6. On 6 January 2016 the applicant was released from Sztum prison and transferred to the Gostynin Centre on the basis of the interim injunction.

7. On 10 May 2016 the Gdańsk Regional Court found the applicant to be a person representing a threat and ordered his detention at the Gostynin Centre, having regard to an expert report. On 10 January 2017 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court.

8. In a periodic report of 5 July 2017, a team of experts from the Centre concluded that the applicant suffered from a dissocial personality disorder and sexual preference disorder (paedophilia). They noted that the applicant’s confinement and treatment at the Centre should continue. There was still a very high risk that he would commit a prohibited act within the meaning of the 2013 Act. The same conclusions were reached in the periodic report of 5 January 2018.

9. In a periodic report of 5 July 2018, a team of experts from the Centre opined that there was a high risk that the applicant would commit a prohibited act, but found that he could be released, placed under supervision and continue his therapy as an outpatient.

10. The four periodic reports of 4 July 2019, 3 January 2020, 3 July 2020 and 31 December 2020 reached the same conclusions as the reports of 5 July 2017 and 5 January 2018, namely that the applicant’s detention should continue.

11. The applicant remains in detention at the Gostynin Centre.

12. The applicant claims to be detained in cramped conditions. According to the regulation of the Minister of Health of 16 January 2014 the capacity of the Centre was sixty patients, while in April 2021 there were ninety-three persons detained there. The temperature in the rooms is very high in summer and there is no proper ventilation available. The detainees are constantly followed by guards.

13. On 23 June 2020 a group of thirty-nine detainees started a hunger strike to protest against conditions in the Centre. The strike ended after six days when an agreement was concluded, in which the director of the Centre promised to lift some of the restrictions concerning, inter alia , the presence of guards during family visits and the use of handcuffs for detainees aged over seventy when they are taken outside the Centre.

14. On 6 September 2019 the applicant complained to the Director of the Centre about being routinely handcuffed during his transportation for medical consultations outside the Centre and during those consultations. On 17 September 2019 the Director replied that the preventive use of handcuffs during transportation was allowed under the 2013 Act. As regards medical consultations, the use of handcuffs depended on the decision of a doctor. On 27 September 2019 the applicant wrote to the Director of the Centre that he had renounced any medical assistance at the Centre and outside. He submitted that the handcuffs could be used only in exceptional cases and after an individual assessment of each patient had been made. He also noted that in his case a doctor had requested that the handcuffs be removed but the guard had refused.

15. The applicant submits that during family visits a guard equipped with a truncheon, pepper spray and handcuffs is constantly present in the room. After each family visit, he is required to strip naked and undergo a search.

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

COMPLAINTS

17. The applicant complains about his detention at the Gostynin Centre. In his letter of 11 July 2020, he claims that the Centre does not resemble a therapeutic institution on account of the allegedly very poor living conditions, lack of space and oppressive environment.

18. In his letters of December 2017, January 2018, and July 2020 the applicant complains that he was held in cramped conditions. He alleges that the temperature in the rooms was very high in summer and that there was no proper ventilation in place.

19. In his letter of 4 March 2019, the applicant submits that during each family visit a guard equipped with a truncheon, pepper spray and handcuffs is present in the room. In addition, after every family visit, he is required to strip naked and undergo a search.

20. In his letter of 23 September 2019, the applicant complains about being handcuffed each time he was taken for a medical consultation outside the Centre and during those consultations.

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, high temperatures in summer 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 by the Gostynin Centre? In the negative, did that situation amount to inhuman or degrading treatment (cf. Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 141-148, 31 January 2019)?

3. Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment in breach of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the systematic use of handcuffs during his transportation to and in the course of medical consultations outside the Gostynin Centre (cf. Shlykov and Others v. Russia , nos. 78638/11 and 3 others, §§ 69-76, 19 January 2021)?

Article 5 § 1 (e)

Having regard to the conditions prevailing at the Gostynin Centre, 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 (cf. Rooman v. Belgium [GC], no. 18052/11, §§ 205-211, 31 January 2019)? Reference is made to the reports mentioned above.

Article 8

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: (1) the guards, equipped with special means, being constantly present during family visits, and (2) the obligation to strip naked and undergo a search after every family visit?

2. If so, was that interference in accordance with the law in terms of Article 8 § 2? Reference is made to the fact that the restriction in (1) the form of the constant presence of guards and (2) the obligation to strip naked and undergo a search does not have a legal basis in the statute and is solely provided for by the internal rules of the Centre.

3. Did the authorities put disproportionate restrictions on the applicant’s contact with his family during his detention on account of: (1) the guards being constantly present during each and every family visit, and (2) the routine obligation to strip naked and undergo a search after every family visit?