STEFANIAK v. POLAND
Inadmissible
András Sajó;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Nona Tsotsoria;Paulo Pinto De Albuquerque;Vincent A. De Gaetano;Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer
1. The applicant, Ms Małgorzata Stefaniak, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Koszalin. She is represented before the Court by Mr A. Bodnar and Ms I. Pacho, lawyers working for the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Warsaw. In 2015 Mr A. Bodnar was appointed to the post of Ombudsman and no longer represents the applicant. 2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 4. Since 2003 the applicant has been serving various prison sentences. The end of her current sentence falls in 2030. 5. The Government maintained that during her imprisonment in various prisons the applicant had been given constant medical care. The applicant had been treated for various illnesses and had received specialist treatment, specifically gynaecological, dental and psychiatric care. 6. The applicant submitted that the medical attention she had received had not been adequate. For instance she had refused a gallbladder removal as the prison hospital had offered her only standard surgery, not a laparoscopic operation. She had also reported problems with her spine and was undergoing constant psychiatric treatment. 7. On 1 September 2010 the applicant consulted a laryngologist who, for the first time, diagnosed a hearing impairment and recommended the use of a hearing aid. On 28 September 2010 an audiogram was carried out, on the basis of which a doctor confirmed, on 30 September 2010, that the applicant was suffering from hearing loss. 8. Her first request to be provided with a hearing aid had been dismissed by the prison authorities in December 2010 as it had not been absolutely necessary in her condition. In particular, the prison authorities did not find it established that her hearing impairment had been such as to cause her difficulties in her everyday life in prison. 9. On 31 January 2011, while detained in the Bydgoszcz prison, the applicant made a new request for a hearing aid. On 21 February 2011 the director of the prison hospital at the Bydgoszcz prison informed her that it had not been possible for the authorities to fund a device. 10. On 7 April 2011 the Koszalin medical prison service issued a certificate referring to the audiogram of 28 September 2010 and to the consultation with the laryngologist. The doctor stated that the applicant was suffering from a hearing impairment and recommended the use of a hearing aid, paid for either by the applicant or by the prison medical services. 11. On 31 August 2011 a doctor from a private practice issued a certificate on the basis of the audiogram of 28 September 2010 without examining the applicant. She certified a 60% hearing loss, justifying the need for a hearing aid. 12. On 8 September 2011 a second audiogram was carried out. The applicant was of the view that it proved deterioration of her hearing but the Government submitted that her condition had remained the same. 13. During that period the applicant underwent a re-education program to ease her spinal condition and various basic and more specialised medical examinations. Those included scans or X-rays of the spine, abdomen, breasts, and chest, as well as further audiograms. 14. The applicant submitted that she had requested a hearing aid on numerous subsequent occasions, but to no avail. The prison authorities referred to lack of funds. 15. On 15 April 2013 the applicant received a medical certificate confirming her various medical conditions, referring in particular to her spine, ovaries, kidneys and hearing. The certificate concluded that the applicant should continue receiving re-education treatment for her spine and recommended fitting her with a hearing aid. 16. On 14 March 2014 the applicant was transferred to the Chojnice Remand Centre. On 16 June 2014 she consulted a specialist doctor who recommended that the applicant be provided with a hearing aid. 17. On 23 July 2014 the authorities provided the applicant with a hearing aid. The entire cost of 877 Polish zlotys (PLN) was covered by the Chojnice Remand Centre. 18. On 31 November 2014 the director of the Chojnice Remand Centre explained in a letter that its limited financial resources had not allowed the purchase a different model of hearing aid, as requested by the applicant. The model given to her was of a type also used by other detainees, who had never complained about it. The Director referred to the provisions of domestic law, which allow the authorities to partly or entirely cover the cost of medical equipment such as hearing aids. 19. During her detention the applicant frequently requested leave from prison for various purposes. She was granted leave in 2004 and 2008 for medical purposes. 20. On 19 April 2011 the Penitentiary Division of the Koszalin Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request for temporary leave on health grounds. The court found that the applicant had obtained prison leave in 2008 for the purpose of having an operation. During the leave she had committed further offences and had undergone surgery on the very last day of her leave. She had also failed to return from the leave on time. The court sought a medical expert opinion which stated that the applicant could be treated in prison for her spinal condition. The court concluded that the applicant’s medical condition was not incompatible with detention and that she was receiving appropriate medical care from the prison health services. On 20 July 2011 the Szczecin Court of Appeal upheld the decision and refused her leave from prison. 21. In September 2011 the applicant again applied for leave from prison in order to take up employment. The penitentiary courts refused the application on 31 January 2012. The Government submitted that the medical opinion prepared in this set of proceedings had demonstrated a generally good state of health and the fact that she had been continuously receiving medical attention in prison. 22. The applicant complained to the prison authorities on many occasions about the conditions of her detention, in particular the allegedly inadequate treatment of her chronic back pain. On each occasion the complaints were dismissed by the authorities as manifestly ill-founded. 23. The applicant lodged civil claims for compensation against some prisons by way of complaint about the prevailing conditions, for instance the type of cells to which she was assigned, the attitude of the prison guards towards her, etc. There is no evidence that any of those claims referred to the delay before the authorities provided her with a hearing aid. 24. The provisions pertaining to medical care in detention facilities, and the relevant domestic law and practice are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Sławomir Musiał v. Poland (no. 28300/06, §§ 48-61, 20 January 2009); Kaprykowski v. Poland (no. 23052/05, §§ 36-39, 3 February 2009); and the decision in Ostrowski v Poland (dec.), no. 26945/07, 1 September 2015.