003-3760501-4296398

issued by the Registrar of the Court   ECHR 262 (2011)   29.11.2011   Polish authorities refused prisoner permission to visit his dying   daughter in hospital and then failed to reply adequately and in   time to his request to attend her funeral   In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Giszczak v. Poland (application   no. 40195/08), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,   unanimously, that there had been:   Two violations of Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the   European Convention on Human Rights   The case concerned a Polish prisoner’s complaint about not being allowed to visit his   daughter who was in intensive-care and that, following her death, he decided not to go   to her funeral as it was not clear whether he would have to attend in prison uniform and   chains and under police escort.   Principal facts   The applicant, Grzegorz Giszczak, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and is   currently serving a 13-year prison sentence for incitement to murder in Hrubieszów   (Poland).   Six years into his prison sentence, Mr Giszczak was informed on 21 April 2008 that his   11-year old daughter had been hit by a bus and was in intensive care in a coma. A week   later, he applied for compassionate leave to visit her. The authorities subsequently   refused this request, on the ground that Mr Giszczak was convicted of a serious crime   and, involved in the prison subculture, was rude towards prison officers.   His daughter died on 16 May 2008. Her funeral took place on 21 May 2008.   Mr Giszczak did not go to his daughter’s funeral as he says that he was led to believe   that he would have to attend in prison clothes with shackles (chains) on both his hands   and legs and under uniformed police escort. Informed orally of this decision the day   before the funeral, he decided not to go out of fear of disturbing the ceremony.   The Government submitted that Mr Giszczak must have misunderstood as he clearly   would have been allowed to go to his daughter’s funeral in normal clothes and with   simple handcuffs.   The written decision granting him permission to attend his daughter’s funeral was served   on him on 26 May 2008. It specified that he could attend if escorted by the police but did   not mention whether he could go in normal clothes or without joined shackles.   Under Articles 43 and 44 of the Convention, this Chamber judgment is not final. During the three-month   period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the   Court. If such a request is made, a panel of five judges considers whether the case deserves further   examination. In that event, the Grand Chamber will hear the case and deliver a final judgment. If the referral   request is refused, the Chamber judgment will become final on that day.   Once a judgment becomes final, it is transmitted to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe for   supervision of its execution. Further information about the execution process can be found here:   www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/execution   Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Mr Giszczak complained about the refusal to allow him to visit his seriously injured   daughter in hospital and, following her death, to attend her funeral in normal clothes.   The case will be examined under Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life).   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 13 August   2008.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:   David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), President,   Lech Garlicki (Poland),   Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),   Ledi Bianku (Albania),   Zdravka Kalaydjieva (Bulgaria),   Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro),   Vincent A. de Gaetano (Malta), Judges,   and also Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.   Decision of the Court   Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life)   The Court considered that the reasons given for not allowing Mr Giszczak to visit his   daughter in hospital had not been convincing as the authorities’ concerns (gravity of the   offence and rude behaviour) could have been addressed by organising his escorted   leave. The Court therefore concluded that the refusal had not been “necessary in a   democratic society” as it had not corresponded to a pressing social need and had not   been proportionate to the legitimate aim – namely protecting public safety and   preventing disorder or crime – pursued. There had therefore been a violation of Article 8   concerning the refusal to let Mr Giszczak visit his dying daughter in hospital.   As concerned the compassionate leave to go to his daughter’s funeral, the Court noted   that the written decision had only been served on Mr Giszczak four days after the funeral   had actually taken place. Furthermore, it had not been particularly precise. Nor had he   been given clear information about the conditions for attending his daughter’s funeral   when informed orally of the decision. Indeed, the fact that Mr Giszczak had not been   informed in time and in a clear and unequivocal manner about the conditions of his   compassionate leave had resulted in him refusing to go as he was worried about causing   disruption. There had therefore been a further violation of Article 8 on account of the   Polish authorities’ failure to reply adequately and in good time to Mr Giszczak’s request   to go to his daughter’s funeral.   Article 41 (just satisfaction)   The Court held that Poland was to pay Mr Giszczak 2,000 euros (EUR) in respect of   non-pecuniary damage.   The judgment is available only in English.   This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court.   Decisions, judgments and further information about the Court can be found   www.echr.coe.int. To receive the Court’s press releases, please subscribe to the Court’s   RSS feeds.   Press contacts   [email protected]e.int | tel: +33 3 90 21 42 08   Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 30)   Emma Hellyer (tel: + 33 3 90 21 42 15)   Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 3 88 41 35 70)   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 3 90 21 49 79)   Denis Lambert (tel: + 33 3 90 21 41 09)   Petra Leppee Fraize (tel: + 33 3 90 21 29 07)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of   Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European   Convention on Human Rights.   3