EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS. CHAMBER JUDGMENT: DZIECIAK v. POLAND

Deprecated: Function ereg() is deprecated in /var/www/functionsNew.php on line 1215

9.12.2008

Press release issued by the Registrar

CHAMBER JUDGMENT 
DZIECIAK v. POLAND

The European Court of Human Rights has today notified in writing its Chamber 
judgment1 in the case of Dzieciak v. Poland (application no. 77766/01).

The Court held:

·      unanimously, that there had been a violation of Article 2 (right to 
life) of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning the Polish 
authorities’ failure to protect Mr Dzieciak’s health and life on account of 
inadequate medical care during his four years of pre-trial detention; and,

·      by five votes to two, that there had been a violation of Article 2 of 
the Convention concerning the ineffective investigation into Mr Dzieciak’s 
death.

Under Article 41 (just satisfaction), the Court awarded Mr Dzieciak’s widow 
20,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage (The judgment is 
available only in English.)

1.  Principal facts

The applicant, Zbigniew Dzieciak, was a Polish national who was born in 1948 
and lived in Warsaw. He suffered from heart disease and had two heart 
attacks prior to his pre-trial detention on suspicion of drug trafficking. 
He died in detention on 25 October 2001.

The case concerned notably Mrs Dzieciak’s allegation that the Polish 
authorities contributed to her husband’s death due to inadequate and belated 
medical care during the four years he spent in pre-trial detention.

Mr Dzieciak was arrested on 17 September 1997 and placed in pre-trial 
detention on suspicion of, in particular, recruiting for an international 
drug ring. Despite his numerous requests for release on grounds of ill-
health, the domestic courts repeatedly extended his detention, relying on 
the reasonable suspicion against him and the complexity of the 
investigation, which involved organised crime.

In September 1998 and February 1999 a medical panel which had examined the 
applicant concluded that he was well enough to remain in detention, provided 
that there was a hospital wing in the detention centre where he was being 
held.

The applicant’s wife, who visited her husband twice a month, submitted that 
his health constantly deteriorated during his detention. She alleged that 
his serious health problems started in November 1999 when he was transferred 
to Łódź Detention Centre, which had no hospital facility, and declined to 
the extent that in March 2000 he lost consciousness and had to be 
transferred to Łódź Prison Hospital. He spent 10 months there, during which 
time he had various tests, including a coronary angiography.

Subsequently, in January 2001 the applicant was transferred to Mokotów 
Detention Centre. His health deteriorated even further there; he collapsed 
six months later and was taken to Warsaw Prison Hospital where he was 
treated for pneumonia until 10 September 2001.

During the period spent in that hospital, the applicant was examined by 
doctors from Anin Institute of Cardiology who decided that he should have a 
heart bypass operation. Three appointments were scheduled for surgery. The 
applicant submitted that he had never been informed of the first appointment 
of 27 July 2001; the Government maintained that that date had been cancelled 
due to renovation work to the institute. As concerned the second 
appointment, the applicant’s wife testified that her husband had received 
notification, but too late as he had received it after the proposed date, 21 
September 2001. She also submitted that that notification’s envelope had 
been stamped by the authorities with “censored 24.09.01”. Finally, the 
applicant’s wife had gone herself to the institute to obtain a third 
appointment, scheduled for 26 October 2001; she gave the notification to the 
applicant’s lawyer in person so that he could inform the detention centre.

On 1 October a medical panel examined the applicant again and concluded that 
detention posed a threat to his health; in view of the applicant’s surgery 
on 26 October 2001, it was recommended that the preventive measure against 
him be changed. On 5 October Warsaw Court of Appeal, without examining the 
applicant’s state of health, extended his pre-trial detention for another 
four months.

The applicant’s trial started on 16 October 2001 and he also attended 
hearings on 18 and 19 October; during that time the applicant was prevented 
from having any medical consultations as he was transferred to the trial 
court before the doctors’ arrival at the detention centre and was returned 
to his cell when they had already gone off duty.

According to the applicant’s wife and other evidence examined by the Court, 
on 22 October the applicant was brought to the court room where he fainted 
before the hearing began and at 9.30 a.m. was taken back to Mokotów 
Detention Centre’s hospital wing. He was then examined by a doctor and 
transferred back to his cell.

The same day the trial court was forwarded the medical panel’s report of 1 
October 2001 and decided to release the applicant on 26 October 2001 so that 
he could have his heart surgery.

Meanwhile, at 3.45 p.m. the applicant, unconscious, was taken from his cell 
to the hospital wing of the detention centre. He was then hospitalised in 
Warsaw and, never regaining consciousness, died on 25 October 2001. The post 
mortem examination concluded that he had died of acute coronary 
insufficiency.

The Government maintained that the applicant had been seen by various 
doctors and cardiologists and given specialised treatment throughout his 
detention. Furthermore, following the investigation into the applicant’s 
death, launched in December 2001 and ultimately discontinued in January 
2004, medical experts had concluded that the applicant had died as a result 
of unsuccessful medical treatment for which no-one could be held responsible 
and that it was impossible to assess whether surgery would have improved the 
applicant’s health, given the advanced stage of his illness.

2.  Procedure and composition of the Court

The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 May 
2000.

Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:

Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President, 
Lech Garlicki (Poland), 
Giovanni Bonello (Malta), 
Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), 
David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), 
Ledi Bianku (Albania), 
Mihai Poalelungi (Moldova), judges, 
 
and also Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.

3.  Summary of the judgment2 

Complaints

Relying in particular on Article 2 (right to life), the applicant’s wife 
alleged that the Polish authorities had contributed to her husband’s death 
through inadequate and belated medical care and that the investigation into 
his death had been ineffective. Mr Dzieciak also complained that the 
inadequacy of the medical care during his pre-trial detention had amounted 
to inhuman and degrading treatment and that the length of his pre-trial 
detention had been excessive, in breach of Articles 3 (prohibition of 
inhuman or degrading treatment) and 5 (right to liberty and security).

Decision of the Court

Article 2

The alleged failure to protect Mr Dzieciak’s life

The Court noted that it was not in dispute that the applicant had suffered 
from a serious heart disease, had had heart attacks prior to his detention, 
and that his state of health had deteriorated during the years he spent in 
custody. Nor had the Government denied that the authorities had been aware 
of his disease, which had required periodic hospitalisation and medical 
interventions and had, eventually, qualified him for heart surgery in a 
civilian hospital.

However, despite the medical panel’s reports of 1998 and 1999 which 
recommended that the applicant should be kept in a detention centre with a 
hospital wing, in November 1999 he had been transferred to a detention 
centre in Łódź with no hospital wing. There was no evidence in the case file 
to show that the applicant had received any medical treatment during the 
four months he spent in that facility or even that he had seen a doctor. It 
had taken the applicant’s health to deteriorate to such an extent that he 
had collapsed for him to be transferred to hospital. The very fact that he 
had then had to stay in that hospital for 10 months indicated the gravity of 
his illness. On a subsequent occasion it had taken the applicant’s diagnosis 
with pneumonia for him to be hospitalised.

As concerned the applicant’s surgery, the Court considered that neither the 
domestic authorities nor the Government had given a satisfactory explanation 
as to why the applicant had not been transferred to the Institute on the 
first two of the dates scheduled. It was particularly troubling that the 
envelope containing the notification of the appointment scheduled for 21 
September 2001 had apparently been delayed by a prosecutor for the purpose 
of censorship until 24 September 2001.

Indeed, the Court was struck by the fact that even though the medical panel 
had recommended the applicant’s release on 1 October 2001 as it considered 
further detention a threat to his health, that decision had only been 
forwarded to the trial court 22 days later, namely the day on which the 
applicant had collapsed in the courtroom.

Moreover, the fact that the Government had failed to give a detailed account 
of the circumstances directly preceding the applicant’s death on 22 October 
2001 made it difficult for the Court to assess the appropriateness of his 
medical care on that day. However, as concerned the days immediately before 
22 October 2001, the Court observed that the Government had not contested 
that the applicant had attended the hearings in his case and therefore had 
no access to a doctor, as he had remained outside the detention centre 
during the doctors’ hours of duty.

Finally, the grounds given by the domestic authorities to extend the 
applicant’s detention had been particularly unsatisfactory given the serious 
state of his health, which had provided more and more cause for concern as 
time passed, and could not justify the overall period of the his detention, 
which had exceeded four years.

The above elements were sufficient for the Court to conclude that the 
quality and promptness of the medical care provided to the applicant during 
the four years of his pre-trial detention had put his health and life in 
danger. In particular, the lack of cooperation and coordination between the 
various state authorities, the failure to take the applicant to hospital for 
two scheduled operations, the lack of adequate and prompt information to the 
trial court on the applicant’s state of health, the failure to secure him 
access to doctors during the final days of his life and the failure to take 
into account his health in the automatic extensions of his detention had 
amounted to inadequate medical treatment and had constituted a violation of 
Poland’s obligation to protect the lives of those it holds in custody. There 
had accordingly been a violation of Article 2 on account of the Polish 
authorities’ failure to protect the applicant’s life.

The alleged inadequacy of the investigation

The Court considered that the facts of the case required a prompt and 
diligent reaction from the investigating authorities. The investigation had, 
however, lasted more than two years and had been discontinued by the 
prosecutor without having considered doubts expressed by experts about the 
postponing of the applicant’s surgery on three occasions.

More importantly, the incomplete and inadequate character of the 
investigation was highlighted by the fact that the exact course of events 
directly preceding the applicant’s death had not been established. The 
prosecutor had failed to establish: whether the applicant had been taken to 
the court room that morning; what exactly had happened in the court’s 
building; why the ambulance had brought him back to the detention centre; 
and, finally what had happened before the applicant had been taken 
unconscious from his cell at 3.45 p.m. Nor had the prosecutor assessed the 
accuracy of witness statements, or heard other witnesses such as prison 
guards, the applicant’s cell mates or the ambulance team.

The Court therefore concluded that the authorities had failed to carry out a 
thorough and effective investigation into the allegation that the 
applicant’s death had been caused by ineffective medical care during his 
four years of pre-trial detention, in further violation of Article 2.

The Court considered that it was not necessary to examine separately the 
complaints under Article 3 and Article 5 § 3.

Judges Garlicki and Thór Björgvinsson expressed a partly dissenting opinion, 
which is annexed to the judgment.

2008-12-09