European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 9409/09
Tomasz PIELAK
against Poland
lodged on 1 February 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Tomasz Pielak, is a Polish national who was born in 1981 and is currently detained in Pinczów Prison.

A.  The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant is serving a nine years’ prison sentence for attempted murder and other offences.

Since 16 June 2002 the applicant has been detained in Pinczow Prison.

On 21 January 2009 the applicant’s father died. The applicant was informed about this fact by phone on 22 January 2009.

On 23 January 2009 the applicant requested the Penitentiary Judge of the Kielce Regional Court (sedzia penitencjarny) to grant him compassionate leave from prison for a period of five days, without an escort of prison officers, with a view to attending his father’s funeral.

By a decision of 27 January 2009 the Penitentiary Judge, applying Article 141a § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences, dismissed the request. The Penitentiary Judge justified his decision by the applicant’s reprehensible behaviour in prison, in particular by the fact that he had participated in “criminal subcultures” (podkultury przestepcze) as well as by the gravity of the offences of which he had been convicted, concluding that the “proper exercise of the compassionate leave” by the applicant could not be guaranteed.

The decision was served on the applicant on 28 January 2009.

The applicant’s father’s funeral took place on 29 January 2009.

The applicant appealed against the decision of 27 January 2009, arguing that he was the only prisoner to be refused compassionate leave under the escort of the prison officers and that the refusal had amounted to revenge of the authorities for his numerous complaints in which he had merely called for his rights be respected.

On 11 March 2009 the Kielce Regional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the contested decision had been given in full compliance with the relevant legal provisions in force and thus the arguments raised by the applicant fell out of the statutory scope of judicial review, limited to points of law. Nevertheless, the court went on to examine the merits of the contested decision and held that given the established facts concerning the applicant’s behaviour, the relevant conclusions reached by the penitentiary judge should be regarded as correct and well-founded. The court also noted that the applicant had not requested to be allowed to leave prison under the escort of prison officers, but – on the contrary – had used the exact words “without an escort of prison officers”, mentioning the possibility of being escorted only in his appeal. It further noted that the applicant was highly demoralised and had been disciplined on numerous occasions by the prison authorities.

B.  Relevant domestic law

Article 141a of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences reads, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“In cases of particular importance for a convicted person, he or she may be granted permission to leave prison for a period not exceeding five days, if necessary under the escort of a prison officer or in the company of another trustworthy person (osoba godna zaufania )”.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains, without invoking any Convention provision, that he was not allowed to attend his father’s funeral.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Was the interference with the applicant’s right to respect for his private and family life on account of the refusal to participate in his father’s funeral “necessary” within the meaning of Article 8 § 2 of the Convention?