European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 13515/07
by Michal MIKOŁAJCZYK
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 March 2007,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Michał Mikołajczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1987 and lives in Zduńska Wola. The Polish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 15 May 2006 the applicant was detained in Łódź Remand Centre. It appears that he remained there until an unspecified date in March 2008.

The applicant's cell was overcrowded. He was held together with eleven detainees in a cell of twelve square metres originally designed for four persons.

The living, sanitary and hygienic conditions in the remand centre were inadequate.

The applicant's cell was not ventilated or heated. The windows were covered with Plexiglas and there was no natural light coming in. In the wintertime the temperature inside the cell dropped to 10 degrees Celsius.

The cell was equipped with a toilet cubicle and a washbasin. However, there was only a cold tap and the sewage pipes were leaking. As a result there was a constant foul odour.

The cell was infested with bugs. Detainees slept in old bunk beds with shabby and dirty mattresses and blankets. According to the remand centre internal regulations detainees had a right to have their bed linen changed every six months but the rule was not complied with. Detainees were not allowed to wash their sheets themselves. Detergents and cleaning products were available in such small quantities that it was not possible to keep the cell clean.

Detainees were entitled to have one fifteen-minute hot shower per week but they were often allowed to stay in the shower room for only five minutes and the water was cold.

Food was often served to detainees beyond its expiry date and was not nutritious. It was distributed by fellow inmates. It often contained pieces of rubbish, such as chewing gum, metal nails and other waste.

There were frequent power cuts in the remand centre.

Detainees were allowed only thirty minutes of outdoor exercise a day. According to the internal regulations they should be entitled to one hour a day.

The medical care in the remand centre was inadequate. It was necessary to wait approximately a fortnight for an appointment with an in-house doctor. Irrespective of the illness, the only medicine available in the remand centre was aspirin in limited quantity. The applicant did not receive proper treatment when his hand was burned. The applicant submitted that he suffered from hereditary heart disease and that he had not been able to obtain a medical examination by a cardiologist. The copy of the applicant's medical records revealed that since the beginning of his detention in Łódź Remand Centre he had been examined once by a dentist and thirty-five times by a nurse or a general practitioner.

The applicant submitted that he had been constantly humiliated by the remand centre staff and that on several occasions he had been beaten up by the warders or punished unjustly.

It appears that the applicant complained on several occasions to the Governor of the Łódź Remand Centre about various aspects of his detention. It also appears that on 7 July 2007 the unspecified Regional Court rejected the applicant's claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage allegedly suffered by him because of inadequate conditions in the remand centre. However, the applicant failed to provide any documents to that effect.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of inadequate conditions and medical care in Łódź Remand Centre.

THE LAW

By letter dated 11 April 2008 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 26 May 2008.

By letter dated 23 June 2008, sent by registered post to Łódź Prison, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 26 May 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The letter was returned to the sender as it had not been claimed.

On 6 August 2008 a similar letter was sent by registered post to the applicant's home address. It was returned to the sender with a note that it had not been claimed within the time-limit. The applicant has not to date resumed correspondence with the Court in the instant case.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President