FIRST SECTION
 
 
 
 
 
CASE OF ZARĘBA v. POLAND
(Application no. 59955/15)
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT
 
 
 
 
 
STRASBOURG
10 October 2019
 
 
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zaręba v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
 Aleš Pejchal, President,
 Tim Eicke,
 Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 17 September 2019,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application (no. 59955/15) 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 Robert Zaręba (“the applicant”), on 13 November 2015. 2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. On 18 January 2017 notice of the complaint concerning conditions of detention was given to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible pursuant to Rule 54 § 3 of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS
  THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
4. The applicant was born in 1971 and is currently detained in Garbalin Prison. 5. The facts of the case were not in dispute and may be summarised as follows. Period of the applicant’s detention
6. The applicant was detained in Łódź Remand Centre from January 2007 until at least the date on which he extended his claim lodged with the domestic courts, that is to say until 12 March 2013 (see paragraph 10 below). Conditions of the applicant’s detention
7. The applicant submitted that during his detention in Łódź Remand Centre he had been held in overcrowded cells in which the space per person had been below the Polish statutory minimum standard of 3 sq. m. 8. The domestic courts found, without giving any further details, that the applicant had often been detained in overcrowded cells (meaning with less than the statutory minimum of 3 sq. m per person) between January 2007 and May 2009. 9. The courts established, in particular, that the applicant had been detained in cell no. 151 (11.23 sq. m) between 28 August and 20 October 2009 (one month and twenty-two days) shared by four prisoners, and then also on 21 October 2009 in a cell of 12.05 sq. m shared by five prisoners. The applicant submitted that the cells had not been properly ventilated, there had been fungus on the walls and the windows had been leaky. Civil proceedings against the State Treasury
10. On 7 May 2012 the applicant brought a civil action for infringement of his personal rights on account of the inadequate living conditions in Łódź Remand Centre between January 2007 until the date of lodging his action with the court. On 12 March 2013 he extended his claim for a further period from February 2012 until March 2013. The applicant argued that he had been detained in overcrowded cells below the statutory minimum standard. He claimed 82,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 20,500 euros (EUR)) in compensation. 11. On 13 August 2013 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) awarded the applicant PLN 1,000 (approximately EUR 250) in compensation and dismissed the remainder of his action. The domestic court found that the applicant had been detained in overcrowded cells between 28 August and 21 October 2009 (one month and twenty-three days). The court considered that, although the defendant’s actions had been unlawful and the conditions difficult, the compensation awarded had been sufficient. 12. On 3 April 2014 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed appeals by the applicant and the defendant, holding that the first‑instance court had correctly established the circumstances of the case, had properly assessed the evidence and had awarded sufficient compensation. 13. On 11 June 2015 the Supreme Court refused to entertain a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
14. 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 inadequate conditions, is set out in the Court’s pilot judgments in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04), and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05) adopted on 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§ 45-88 respectively). More recent developments are described in the Court’s decision in the case of Łatak v. Poland (no. 52070/08, 12 October 2010, §§ 25-54). THE LAW
  THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST FOR THE APPLICATION TO BE STRUCK OUT UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION
15. On 22 March 2017 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration similar to that in the case of Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey (preliminary objection) [GC], no. 26307/95, ECHR 2003‑VI). They informed the Court that they were ready to accept that there had been a violation of the applicant’s right under Article 3 of the Convention as regards the overcrowded detention conditions and proposed an amount that they were prepared to pay in respect of the non-pecuniary damage sustained by the applicant. The Government invited the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. 16. The applicant did not agree with the Government’s proposal. He submitted that the amount proposed did not constitute sufficient just satisfaction for the damage he had sustained. 17. Having examined the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration, the Court finds that the Government failed to submit a statement offering a sufficient basis for finding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require the Court to continue its examination of the case (contrast Spółka z o.o. WAZA v. Poland (striking out), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007). 18. This being so, the Court rejects the Government’s request for the application to be struck out under Article 37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the case. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION
19. The applicant complained that the conditions of his detention and the overcrowding in Łódź Remand Centre, where he had been held between 28 August and 21 October 2009 (one month and twenty-three days), had amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
20. The Government, having submitted a unilateral declaration, did not make detailed observations on the merits of the case. They only submitted that the reductions in the required personal space had been accompanied by mitigating factors in particular the fact that the applicant had spent sufficient time outside the cell due to his full-time employment and access to the various out-of-cell activities. However, these submissions were not confirmed by any evidence. Admissibility
21. The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.

Outcome for Article 3: violation