CEDHCASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 janvier 2026
- ECLI
- ECLI:CEDH:001-248406
- Date
- 9 janvier 2026
- Publication
- 9 janvier 2026
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleCommunicated
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sADADF4A7 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } Published on 26 January 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 43176/21 Grzegorz ŁYSIEŃ against Poland and 7 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 9 January 2026 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applications concern strip searches the applicants had to undergo while imprisoned. None of the applicants were classified as “dangerous detainees” and they lodged applications, complaints and appeals with various bodies of the prison system and the judiciary but all of them were dismissed (see the appended table for details). All applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the unjustified strip searches violated their right to respect for their private lives. The applicants in applications nos. 12583/24 and 32038/24 additionally complain, under Article 3 of the Convention, about the strip searches constituting degrading treatment on account of their specific circumstances as referred to in the appended table. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES Question concerning all applications :   1.     Do the relevant facts of the applications relating to the strip searches give rise to a violation of the applicants’ right to their private life contrary to Article 8 of the Convention (see, Milka v. Poland , no. 14322/12, §§ 41-50, 15 September 2015; Dejnek v.   Poland , no. 9635/13, §§ 70-77, 1 June 2017; and Bojar v. Poland [Committee], no.   11148/18, §§ 8-18, 11 May 2023)?   Question concerning applications nos. 12583/24 and 32038/24 :   2.     Have the applicants been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article 3 of the Convention (see, for example, Roth v. Germany , nos. 6780/18 and 30776/18, §§ 70-72, 22 October 2020)? Reference is made to the applicants’ allegations concerning the specific circumstances of the strip searches.   APPENDIX No. Application no. Case name Introduction date Applicant’s name Year of birth Place of residence Representative’s name Location Place of detention Alleged number of strip searches Period in question Circumstances of strip searches as submitted by the applicant Domestic remedies used 1. 43176/21 Łysień v. Poland 19/07/2021 Grzegorz ŁYSIEŃ 1992 Szczecin   Szczecin Remand Centre 24 22/04/2017 - 27/12/2017 After visits of family members; after returning to prison from temporary escorted absences Complaint of 12/10/2021 dismissed by the Director of the Szczecin Remand Centre on 05/11/2021 2. 25689/22 Wróblewski v. Poland 11/05/2022 Adrian WRÓBLEWSKI 1976 Bydgoszcz   Włocławek Prison Potulice Prison 5 26/08/2021 - 07/02/2022 Periodic general controls of the applicant’s block; control of the applicant’s cell due to suspicion of possession of unauthorised items Complaints lodged with the penitentiary sections of the Włocławek Regional Court (dismissed on 31/12/2021 and 27/01/2022) and the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (dismissed on 31/03/2022) 3. 1552/24 Kiecka v. Poland 28/12/2023 Dawid KIECKA 1989 Łazy   Strzelce Opolskie Prison No. 1 2 17/09/2023 - 12/11/2023 After visits received by the applicant Complaints lodged with the penitentiary section of the Opole Regional Court dismissed on 03/10/2023 and 24/11/2023 4. 10159/24 Wrzecion v. Poland 13/03/2024 Piotr WRZECION 1971 Strzelce Opolskie   Strzelce Opolskie Prison No. 1 2 15/12/2023 - 17/12/2023 After visits of family members Complaint lodged with the penitentiary section of the Opole Regional Court dismissed on 03/01/2024 5. 12583/24 Mielewczyk v. Poland 11/04/2024 Paweł MIELEWCZYK 1982 Strzelce Opolskie   Piotr PRZESDZING Strzelce Opolskie Strzelce Opolskie Prison No. 1 1 28/08/2023 After a visit of the applicant’s lawyer; in conditions allowing other persons to see the applicant naked Complaint lodged with the penitentiary section of the Opole Regional Court transferred to the Regional Inspectorate of Prison Service, dismissed on 12/10/2023; appeal dismissed by the Opole Regional Court on 21/12/2023 6. 32038/24 Nowak v. Poland 25/10/2024 Krzysztof Florian NOWAK 1990 Łowicz     Sieradz Prison 60 06/2021 - 08/2021 Following the applicant’s inclusion in the list of detainees involved in the trafficking of narcotic substances, the applicant was routinely strip searched and subjected to urine tests, which he was required to provide into a container in the presence of prison officers, upon their request Civil claim for protection of personal rights dismissed by a final judgment of the Sieradz Regional Court on 13/06/2024 (served on the applicant on 26/06/2024) 7. 32408/24 Głębocki v. Poland 17/10/2024 Jakub GŁĘBOCKI 1984 Stargard Grzegorz ŁYSIEŃ Szczecin Stargard Prison 2 01/09/2023 - 02/09/2023 After visits received by the applicant Complaint lodged with the penitentiary section of the Szczecin Regional Court dismissed on 10/10/2024 8. 33635/24 Polaczek v. Poland 04/11/2024 Tomasz POLACZEK 1980 Herby     Gliwice Remand Centre 29 17/07/2024 - 11/09/2025 After visits of the applicant’s lawyer and family members Complaints lodged with the penitentiary section of the Gliwice Regional Court dismissed on 20/09/2024, 07/01/2025, 04/03/2025 and 16/10/2025    Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG
- Date
- 9 janvier 2026
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CEDH:001-248406
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral
- Résumé officiel