CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 8 octobre 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 28 October 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 7463/23 M.A.E. against Poland lodged on 2 February 2023 communicated on 8 October 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s detention in a guarded centre for aliens pending the examination of his asylum application. On 21   July 2022 the applicant, who is an Egyptian national, travelled to Poland without a visa. On 21   July 2022 he was arrested by the Polish authorities. On 23   July 2022 he was placed in the Lesznowola Guarded Centre for Aliens. On 22   July 2022 the Head of the Border Guard in Zgorzelec ordered the applicant to return and banned him from entering Poland for two years. On 23   July 2023 the Zgorzelec District Court ordered the applicant’s detention pending expulsion, on the grounds that the applicant was a flight risk as he had declared that his intention had been to claim asylum in France. The applicant did not appeal. The applicant’s detention was then extended by the court decisions of 26 August and 27 October 2022 (until 23   February 2023). The applicant appealed against these decisions, to no avail. The applicant’s application to have his detention lifted, lodged on 11   January 2023, was pending examination on the date when the present application was introduced to the Court. On an unspecified date the Polish authorities dismissed the applicant’s asylum application (filed on 25 July 2022). These proceedings appear to be ongoing on appeal. The applicant submitted that he was a victim of violence in his home country and that he suffered from a series of severe medical conditions, one of which required urgent surgery. The medical documents produced in detention contain a recommendation that the applicant should receive further diagnostic and medical care. The applicant complains under Articles 3 of the Convention about poor material conditions in the detention centre, in particular, overcrowding and inadequate medical care, as well as limited contact with the outside world. The applicant also complains under Article   5 §   1   (f) of the Convention that his detention is unlawful, arbitrary and disproportionate. Lastly the applicant complains under Article   5 §   4 of the Convention that the decisions extending his detention were not communicated to him; that he could not participate in court hearings concerning his detention; that he was not represented by a lawyer in these proceedings; and that the review of his detention was protracted. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES As to the facts :   1.     Has the applicant’s detention been further extended? 2.     In the event, his detention has been lifted, is the applicant currently in Poland? Is the applicant’s lawyer still in contact with the applicant?   As to the law :   3.     Has the applicant been subjected to treatment contrary to Article   3 of the Convention owing to his medical condition, medical care provided to him, and the overall conditions of his detention in Lesznowola Guarded Centre for Aliens (see, mutatis mutandis , Sławomir Musiał v.   Poland , no.   28300/06, 20   January 2009)? 4.     Is the applicant’s deprivation of liberty in compliance with Article   5   §   1   (f)? 5.     Has the applicant had at his disposal an effective procedure by which he could challenge the lawfulness of his detention, as required by Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?