Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/64283.01-en-20060328/view/
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 00:19:58
Document Index: 185659312

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 64283', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 5', 'art:\n25', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 34', '§ 78', '§ 37', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 4', '§ 1', '§ 28', '§ 3', '§ 4']

TOMCZYK PROKOPYSZYN v. POLAND
TOMCZYK PROKOPYSZYN v. POLAND About Project
CASE OF TOMCZYK PROKOPYSZYN v. POLAND
(Application no. 64283/01)
In the case of Tomczyk Prokopyszyn v. Poland,
1. The case originated in an application (no. 64283/01) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Zbigniew Tomczyk Prokopyszyn (“the applicant”), on 1 May 2000.
3. On 8 July 2005 the Court decided to communicate the complaint concerning monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence with the Court to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
4. The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Strzelce Krajeńskie, Poland.
5. On 3 March 2000 the applicant was brought before the Radomsko District Court (Sąd Rejonowy). He was charged with having committed burglary. The court ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody until 1 June 2000.
6. The applicant was placed in the Piotrków Trybunalski Detention Centre (Areszt Śledczy). His detention was subsequently prolonged several times until the end of the proceedings against him.
7. On 15 November 2000 the Radomsko District Court convicted the applicant of handling stolen goods and sentenced him to 15 months’ imprisonment.
8. On 2 February 2001 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the first-instance judgment.
9. On 28 May 2001 the applicant’s officially-appointed lawyer, who represented him in the proceedings before both instances, refused to lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf.
2. The monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence with the Court
10. The applicant sent numerous letters to the Court, most of which appear to have been opened and read by the domestic authorities.
11. The applicant’s first letter of 1 May 2000 bears the stamp “Radomsko District Prosecutor (Prokuratura Rejonowa w Radomsku)”, the date 8 May 2000 (stamped), and an illegible signature.
12. His letter of 27 August 2001 bears the same stamp, a signature “prok. R. Gawęcka (Prosecutor R. Gawęcka)”, and the date 28 August 2001, which is both stamped and hand-written.
13. The applicant’s letter of 10 September 2001 is marked with the same stamp and the date 12 September 2001 (stamped and hand-written) and bears an illegible signature.
14. The envelopes of the applicant’s letters of 14 and 22 October, 18 November 2001, 2 April, 3 and 22 July, 13 October, 4 December 2002 bear the stamp “Censored” (ocenzurowano) and the official stamp of the Radomsko District Court. Each of them is marked with a date-stamp and an illegible signature. All envelopes bear traces of opening after being sealed: they were cut open and resealed with adhesive tape.
15. On 3 January 2003 the applicant sent a letter to the Court. He complained that his correspondence with the Court’s Registry had been censored. He enclosed the envelope of the letter sent to him by the Registry on 22 November 2002. The envelope was marked with the stamp “Censored”, the date 5 December 2002 and an illegible signature. The envelope of the applicant’s letter to the Court also bears the stamp “censored”, the date 10 January 2003 and an illegible signature. They have been covered up with white corrector fluid.
A. The Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences of 1997
16. Rules relating to means of controlling correspondence of persons involved in criminal proceedings are set out in the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences of 6 June 1997 (Kodeks karny wykonawczy) which entered into force on 1 September 1998.
17. oArticle 103 of that Code, contained in Chapter IV entitled “Imprisonment”, provided as follows:
18. Provisions relating to the execution of detention on remand are contained in Chapter XV entitled “Detention on remand”.
19. Article 214 § 1 provides,
20. Article 242, as applicable at the material time, provided in § 5:
21. On 1 September 1998 the Rules of Detention on Remand (Rozporządzenie Ministra Sprawiedliwości w sprawie regulaminu wykonywania tymczasowego aresztowania) entered into force.
22. Paragraph 36 of the Rules provided:
23. Paragraph 37 read:
24. Paragraph 38 provided in its relevant part:
25. The applicant complained that his correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights was opened and read which amounted to a breach of Article 8 of the Convention which, insofar as relevant, reads:
27. The Government refrained from expressing their opinion on the merits of the complaint under Article 8 § 1.
28. The applicant reiterated his complaint
29. The Court notes that several of the applicant’s letters to the Court bear stamps “Censored”. The envelopes of several letters sent by the applicant to the Court were also marked with such stamp and bear traces of being opened and resealed. The envelope of the letter of 22 November 2002 sent to the applicant by the Registry of the Court likewise bears the stamp “Censored”.
30. It follows that the opening and reading of the applicant’s letters to and from the Court amounted to an “interference” with his right to respect for his correspondence under Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.
31. The Court recalls that any “interference by a public authority” with the right to respect for correspondence will contravene Article 8 of the Convention unless it is “in accordance with the law”, pursues one or more of the legitimate aims referred to in paragraph 2 of that Article and is “necessary in a democratic society” in order to achieve them (see, among many other authorities, Campbell v. the United Kingdom, 25 March 1992, Series A no. 233, p. 16, § 34 and Niedbała v. Poland no. 27915/95, § 78).
32. The Court notes that § 37 (4) of the Rules of Detention on Remand of 1998 required that the inspection of detainee’s correspondence take place in his presence (see paragraph 23 above). In the present case the evidence indicates that the opening of the applicant’s letters did not take place in his presence. It follows that the opening of the letters was not “in accordance with the law”.
33. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention.
34. The applicant complained about conditions of his detention in Piotrków Trybunalski Remand Centre. He relied on Article 3 of the Convention.
35. The Court notes that the applicant formulated his arguments in vague terms, without giving any concrete, convincing factual basis for his grievance. Moreover, he has not produced any documentary material in support of this complaint and he has not informed the Court whether he put the substance of his Convention claim before the domestic authorities. His complaint is therefore unsubstantiated.
36. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
37. The applicant alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 in that he did not have a “fair trial”. He alleged that the courts committed errors of fact and law when dealing with his case.
38. The Court recalls that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the States Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, § 28). The Court observes that the applicant does not allege any particular failure to respect of his right to a fair hearing or any specific shortcomings on the part of the relevant courts. In the light of the material in its possession, the Court finds no indication that the impugned proceedings were unfairly conducted.
39. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 35 § 4 of the Convention.
41. The applicant claimed 150,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
42. The Government maintained that those claims were excessive.
43. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, in particular to the extent of violation found, the Court awards the applicant 1,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
1. Declares the complaint concerning monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence with the European Court of Human Rights admissible and the remainder of the application inadmissible;
TOMCZYK PROKOPYSZYN v. POLAND JUDGMENT