CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 15 décembre 2015

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 191 December 2015 Szafrański v. Poland - 17249/12 Judgment 15.12.2015 [Section IV] Article 8 Positive obligations Insufficient separation of sanitary facilities from remainder of prison cell: violation Article 3 Degrading treatment Insufficient separation of sanitary facilities from remainder of prison cell: no violation Facts – In his application to the European Court the applicant complained that his condition of detention in Wronki Prison were inadequate. In particular, he complained that in seven of the ten cells where he was detained the sanitary facilities were separated from the rest of the cell only by a 1.20   metre-high fibreboard partition and had no doors. Law Article 3 ( substantive aspect ): In previous cases where insufficient partitioning between sanitary facilities and the rest of the cell had been at issue, the Court had found a violation of Article   3 only where other aggravating factors were present and as a result of their cumulative effect. However, in the present case the only hardship the applicant had had to bear was the insufficient separation of the sanitary facilities from the rest of the cell. Apart from that, the cells were properly lit, heated and ventilated and he had access to various activities outside the cells. Therefore, the overall circumstances of his detention could not be found to have caused distress and hardship which exceeded the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention or went beyond the threshold of severity under Article   3. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). Article 8: Under the Court’s case-law the domestic authorities had a positive obligation to provide access to sanitary facilities separated from the rest of the prison cell in such a way as to ensure a minimum of privacy. According to the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment ( CPT ), a sanitary annex which was only partially separated off was not acceptable in a cell occupied by more than one detainee. In addition, the CPT had recommended that a full partition in all the in-cell sanitary annexes be installed. Despite this, the applicant had been placed in cells in which the sanitary facilities were not fully separated off, and had had to use the toilet in the presence of other inmates. The domestic authorities had thus failed to discharge their positive obligation of ensuring a minimum level of privacy for the applicant. Conclusion : violation (unanimously). Article 41: EUR 1,800 in respect of non-pecuniary damage. (See also the Factsheet on Detention conditions and treatment of prisoners )   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes