The applicant was serving a one year prison sentence for mistreating his girlfriend (domestic violence). Whilst in prison his father died. He made a formal application for leave to go to the funeral.

His request was refused by the judge the Penitentiary Judge of the Gdańsk Regional Court for the following reasons; “The convicted person’s application cannot be allowed. The grounds relied on [by the applicant] to justify allowing him to leave the prison cannot be considered especially important.’’. Article 141 § 4 of the 1997 Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences, as in force at the material time, read as follows:“In cases which are especially important for a convicted person, he or she may be granted permission to leave prison for a period not exceeding 5 days, if necessary under the escort of prison officers or other responsible persons (osoby godnej zaufania). As regards convicted persons detained in closed prison facilities such leave may be granted by a Penitentiary Judge and in urgent cases by the Director of the Prison.”

The applicant alleged that the refusal to allow him to attend the funeral of his father was in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

The Court observed that Article 8 of the Convention does not guarantee a detained person an unconditional right to leave prison in order to attend the funeral of a relative. It is up to the domestic authorities to assess each request on its merits.

In the present case the court noted that the Government failed to submit any arguments relating to the existence of the interference, its lawfulness and the aim pursued. In the absence of the parties’ comments the Court considered that the refusal to allow the applicant to attend his father’s funeral constituted an interference with his right to respect for his private and family life.

The Court considered that the domestic authorities dismissed his application for leave from prison without giving any meritorious reasons for their assessment that the applicant’s situation was not “especially important”.

The Court concluded that, the refusal of leave to attend the funeral of the applicant’s father, was not “necessary in a democratic society” as it did not correspond to a pressing social need and was not proportionate to the legitimate aims pursued. The Court held unanimously that there had been a violation of Article 8