CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 14 décembre 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s5FFF0A78 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC202EACC { clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3CC5B6E4 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:18.7pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB8084949 { width:138.49pt; display:inline-block } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s51F2D829 { width:208.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION PILOT-JUDGMENT PROCEDURE AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 38858/07 by Jarosław JÓZEFOWSKI against Poland   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on   14   December   2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Ján Šikuta,   Mihai Poalelungi,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 August 2007, Having regard to the final pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski   v.   Poland (no.   17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no.   17599/05) delivered on 22   October 2009, in particular to the finding under Article 46 of the Convention that overcrowding in Polish prisons and remand centres revealed a structural problem,   Having regard to the decisions to declare the applications Łatak v.   Poland (no.   52070/08) and Łomiński v. Poland (no. 33502/09) inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Jarosław Józefowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and currently lives in Błotnica. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Taciak, a lawyer practising in Wolsztyn. A.     Particular circumstances of the case 1.     Period of the applicant’s detention On an unspecified date in 1999 the applicant was remanded in custody in connection with criminal proceedings pending against him at that time. On 22   December   2005 he began serving a prison sentence. Since 1999 the applicant has been held in a number of detention establishments including remand centres in Śrem Wrocław, Częstochowa, Międzyrzecz, Poznań and in Wierzchowo Pomorskie as well as in Rawicz Prison. On 12   September   2009 he was released. 2.     Conditions of the applicant’s detention The applicant described the conditions of his detention only in respect of Śrem Remand Centre and submitted that the conditions in all detention establishments in which he had been held had been similar and equally inadequate. The applicant’s cell measured 25 m² and was shared by 12 prisoners despite being designed for eight persons. It was a smoking cell and the applicant was held there despite the fact that he was a non-smoker. The cell was furnished with bunk beds, four tables, eight stools, a number of shelves and cupboards, a toilet cubicle and a washbasin. The living space was thus reduced to less than 7 m², approximately 0.5 m² per inmate. The cell was not properly ventilated. Detainees had to wash and dry their laundry inside the cell. As a result, the free space inside the cell was reduced further and the laundry smelled of cigarette smoke. The hygiene and sanitary conditions were inadequate, the cell had been infested with bugs and its detainees often suffered from various skin diseases. The Government submitted that Śrem Remand Centre had not been keeping records of the exact number of prisoners assigned to each cell. They further submitted that, to their knowledge, the problem of overcrowding did not arise in Śrem Remand Centre in 1999, but it could not be excluded that the applicant had been temporarily kept in overcrowded cells throughout 2006 and 2007. Cells in Śrem Remand Centre were systematically refurbished and occasional sanitary inspections did not reveal any irregularities. The applicant’s cell was well-lit and properly ventilated. Prisoners did not complain about any skin diseases or insect bites. The applicant was provided with adequate medical care. A sufficient amount of hygiene and sanitary products were distributed among detainees each month. Prisoners had their linen changed every two weeks.   Lastly, the Government explained that at the beginning of his detention the applicant had declared that he was a non-smoker but he had never complained about his being placed in a cell with smokers, nor had he requested to be transferred to a non-smoking cell. 3.     The applicant’s actions concerning the conditions of his detention The applicant asserted that he had asked the Governor ( Dyrektor ) of Śrem Remand Centre to be transferred to a cell for non-smokers or to be allowed to spend more time outside his cell. His request had been refused, in particular because at the relevant time all cells in Śrem Remand Centre were designated for smokers. The applicant did not bring a civil action in tort to seek compensation for the infringement of his personal rights. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice (See Siedlecki and 9 other applications v. Poland , no. 5246/03). COMPLAINTS   (See Siedlecki and 9 other applications v. Poland , no. 5246/03). THE LAW (See Siedlecki and 9 other applications v. Poland , no. 5246/03). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Declares the application inadmissible.   Fatoş Aracı   Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar   President