Adam MILCZAK v Poland - 11717/02 [2011] ECHR 1006 (7 June 2011)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 June 2011 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 16 March 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,

The applicant, Mr Adam Milczak, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and is currently detained in Wojkowice. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Jakub Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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

On 14 April 2000 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) remanded him in custody on suspicion of murder.

Subsequently, the applicant’s pre trial detention was extended by decisions of the Łódź Regional Court of 4 July and 6 October 2000, and 4 June, 13 August, 15 October and 16 November 2001.

The domestic courts justified the applicant’s pre trial detention by the existence of strong evidence against him and the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed, as well as by the need to secure the proper course of the proceedings. The authorities emphasised that the applicant had to undergo psychiatric observation at the hospital and that a number of expert reports had to be obtained.

On an unspecified date the applicant was indicted for murder, namely, intentionally strangling his former wife.

On 16 November 2001 the Łódź Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment and 8 years’ deprivation of public rights.

Pending appeal, on 8 May 2002 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed a request by the applicant to lift the preventive measure and decided to further extend his detention.

On 23 July 2002 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the judgment in the part concerning the deprivation of public rights and upheld the remainder of the judgment.

On 8 October 2003 the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) quashed the first and second-instance judgments and remitted the case to the Regional Court.

In a separate decision of 8 October 2003 the Supreme Court extended the applicant’s detention, relying on the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed.

On 16 December 2003 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed a request by the applicant for the preventive measure in question to be lifted and decided to further extend his detention. To justify the applicant’s protracted detention the court reiterated the grounds which had previously been relied on and noted, in addition, that the applicant’s chronic illness or his family situation did not warrant his release on humanitarian grounds. This decision was upheld by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 20 January 2004.

Similarly, on 23 June 2004 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed a request by the applicant for the preventive measure in question to be lifted and decided to further extend his detention.

Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was extended by decisions of the Łódź Regional Court of 20 October 2004 and 11 January and 28 February 2005.

To justify the extension of the applicant’s detention the courts relied on the original grounds given. Moreover, the authorities noted that the proceedings could not be completed for objective reasons, such as the fact that samples of the victim’s nails, which were necessary to perform DNA tests, had been lost and that it was necessary to examine a few more witnesses.

On 7 March 2005 the Łódź Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 15 years’ imprisonment.

Throughout the entire proceedings the applicant was represented by legal counsel of his choice; initially by two attorneys and later, upon the remittal of the case, by one.

Subsequently, the applicant was held in Bydgoszcz Fordon, Łódź and Garbalin Prisons. On 22 July 2010 the applicant was transferred to Wojkowice Prison, where he currently remains.

The applicant submitted that Łódź Remand Centre was overcrowded and that the sanitary and hygienic conditions were inadequate. Initially, the applicant was held with four other detainees in a cell designed for three persons. Subsequently, he was transferred to a cell which measured 11.6 m² and was shared by five persons, including the applicant.

The remand centre had not been renovated and was dirty. There was mould on the walls and the cells were infested with bugs. The furniture was scarce and shabby.

In his correspondence with the Court, the applicant repeatedly submitted that unspecified persons had drugged him before his trials, subjected him to electric shocks and used various auditory and visual methods in order, in the applicant’s opinion, to force him to plead guilty to the crime he was charged with.

Lastly, the applicant, who suffers from psoriasis and had been, in the past, treated for hepatitis C, asserted that throughout his detention in various penitentiary facilities he had not received adequate medical care and had not been able to follow the diet he had been prescribed by his doctor when he was at liberty. The applicant maintained that his health had significantly deteriorated since his arrest. He did not, however, specify what ailments he was currently suffering from and did not provide any medical records to support that submission.

The applicant submitted that he had complained to the penitentiary authorities about different aspects of his detention but had never received any reply.

The file contains a copy of a letter issued by an unspecified authority on 16 October 2007. It is confirmed in the letter that the applicant had lodged numerous complaints with the administration of Bydgoszcz Fordon Prison and Łódź Remand Centre. It is further explained that the applicant’s complaints that the authorities had subjected him to electric shocks and caused him to have auditory and visual hallucinations were considered manifestly ill-founded.

A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning general rules governing conditions of detention in Poland and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that their conditions of detention are inadequate are set out in the Court’s pilot judgments given in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05) on 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§ 45-88 respectively). More recent developments are described in the decision given by the Court in the case of Łatak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) on 12 October 2010 (see §§ 25-54).

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre trial detention (tymczasowe aresztowanie), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other, so called “preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze) are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Gołek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27 33, 25 April 2006 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22 23, 4 August 2006.

A. Conditions of the applicant’s detention and the length of his pre trial detention

The applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in Łódź Remand Centre. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

He further complained, invoking Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, about the length of his pre-trial detention.

“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”

By letter dated 16 March 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.

“...the Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the fact that the applicant’s conditions of detention, in particular overcrowding, as identified by the Court in the pilot judgment given in the case of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) on 22 October 2009 (see paragraphs 135 and 147 et seq.), were not compatible with Article 3 of the Convention. Furthermore, the Government would like to express their acknowledgement of the fact that the duration of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was not compatible with the reasonable time requirement of Article 5 (3) of the Convention.

In these circumstances and having particular regard to the violation of Article 3 of the Convention in respect of the applicant’s conditions of detention, the Court’s pilot judgment in the case Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) as well as domestic jurisprudence submitted to this case, the Government declare that they offer to pay the applicant the amount of 15,300 PLN (fifteen thousand three hundred Polish zlotys), which they consider to be reasonable in the present circumstances of the case.

The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points. (...)

The Government would suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as ‘any other reason’ justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. ...”

In a letter of 13 April 2011 the applicant expressed the view that the sum mentioned in the Government’s declaration was unacceptably low. He requested the Court to continue the examination of his application.

The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application or part thereof out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:

“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.

It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application or part thereof under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.

To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03).

The Court has established, in a number of cases, its practice concerning complaints about the conditions of detention (see, for example, Orchowski v. Poland, Norbert Sikorski v. Poland and Łatak v. Poland (dec.), cited above).

It has also addressed, in numerous cases, its practice concerning complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of pre trial detention (see Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, 3 February 2009 with further references).

Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)).

Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).

The applicant further complained under Article 3 of the Convention that the medical care provided to him in the detention facility had not been adequate. He also complained of ill-treatment by unspecified authorities, namely of having been drugged, subjected to electric shocks and various auditory and visual effects during his detention.

The Court notes, however, that the applicant has failed to provide any evidence in support of his claims. The complaint is therefore wholly unsubstantiated.

Furthermore, the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him.

The Court notes that the applicant did not allege any particular failure to respect his right to a fair hearing on the part of the relevant courts. Instead, his complaint is limited to a challenge to the result of the proceedings.

Assessing the circumstances of the case as a whole, the Court finds no indication that the impugned proceedings were conducted unfairly.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.

Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Articles 3 and 5 § 3 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention;

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Adam MILCZAK v Poland - 11717/02 [2011] ECHR 1006 (7 June 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1006.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1006