Glowacki v Regional Court in Ostroleka Poland

Transport conditions may fall within Article 3 of the ECHR. The threshold is high. A breach requires treatment sufficiently severe to humiliate or debase, diminish human dignity, or cause serious fear, anguish or inferiority. A real risk must be supported by evidence relating to the individual and, where reliance is placed on systemic conditions, by evidence of widespread problems. A single disputed and inadequately supported account of discomfort, restraint, cold, noise or restricted toilet access will not ordinarily establish a breach, particularly where contrary official and operational evidence is available and there is no significant adverse effect or intention to debase.

Seven appellants challenged decisions of district judges at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court concerning their extradition to Poland. They contended that the conditions of transport from Biggin Hill, while within Polish jurisdiction and under Polish control, breached Article 3 of the ECHR. Two further appeals raised an additional issue, but the common flight-condition issue was accepted as determinative of those cases as well. The Administrative Court considered the evidential sufficiency of the allegations and the applicable Article 3 threshold.

1. The appeals were dismissed. The conditions in which the appellants were transported from the United Kingdom to Poland did not breach Article 3 of the ECHR.
2. Transport conditions are capable in principle of engaging Article 3. The relevant question is whether the conditions reach the high threshold required for inhuman or degrading treatment. The court considered Shchukin and Others v Cyprus [2010] ECHR 1210 and Pretty v United Kingdom 2346/02 [2002] ECHR 427.
3. A real risk of ill-treatment requires evidence showing that the particular person is vulnerable to the alleged treatment, or that the relevant problems are sufficiently widespread. Following Miklis v Deputy Prosecutor General of Lithuania [2006] EWHC 1032 (Admin), the existence of human-rights violations in general does not itself establish a risk to a particular individual.
4. The evidence did not establish the alleged universal use of shackles, chaining to the aircraft, denial of toilet facilities, extreme cold or excessive noise. The principal witness statement was challenged, inadequately supported and inconsistent with the wider evidence. The court accepted that restraints could sometimes be used, but found no sufficient evidence that their use or the other conditions caused treatment of the severity required by Article 3.
5. Even if the principal account were accepted at face value, six hours of discomfort, cold, noise, lack of food or drink and an unfulfilled desire to use the toilet would not, without evidence of a significant adverse effect or an intention to humiliate or debase, cross the Article 3 threshold.

1. High Court (Administrative Court): appeals from decisions of district judges at the City of Westminster Magistrates’ Court were dismissed. No citation for the decisions below was stated in the judgment.