Prison conditions in Poland do not give rise to real risk of inhuman and degrading treatment

European Arrest Warrants – prosecutorial warrant – two offences – argued that one of the offences for which his surrender is sought, and the sentence to which he may be exposed thereon, is uncertain – argued that he is at real risk of being subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment by virtue of the prison conditions in Poland – argued that surrender would violate his right, under the Constitution and under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights – correspondence with robbery and false imprisonment – minimum gravity requirement satisfied – no in absentia point – argued that the warrant is based on an offence not known to the laws of the Issuing State – additional information - unclear as to what in fact the respondent is being prosecuted for and to what sentence he may be subjected – matters clarified – no breach of rights – prosecuted for deprivation of liberty – lawful sentence – no uncertainty in the warrant – own previous experiences of prisons in Poland - European Committee for the Prevention of Torture reports -  letter from the Human Rights Defenders - statistics from the central prison administration regarding suicide attempts and deaths in custody - system of medical care in custody - Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights in Poland reports – insufficient medical staff in Polish prisons – obsolete infrastructure – lack of funds – delay in treatment - prison health system needs fundamental changes – prison conditions – isolation and personal space - must be an examination of updated objective reliable and specific information on detention condition – up to date reports are required -  not enough for the court to look at whether there is a systemic or generalised deficiency in the country which affects certain groups or certain places of detention - specific and precise, of whether there are substantial grounds to believe that the individual concerned will be exposed to that risk because of the conditions for his detention envisaged in the issuing Member State -  Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform v. Rettinger - burden exists on a respondent to adduce evidence capable of proving that there are substantial grounds for believing that if he or she was returned to the requesting country, he or she would be exposed to a real risk of being subjected treatment contrary to Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights - national standard in Poland of 3m² is inhuman and degrading, in particular when joined with the other conditions that prevail in Poland - respondent is at risk of being held in conditions of less than 3m², which are of themselves inhuman and degrading - whether there is objective, reliable, specific and properly updated information on the detention conditions which prevail – no up to date reports - respondent has not submitted any report from the National Preventive Mechanism concerning prison conditions generally in Poland and indeed, the CPT reports that the National Preventive Mechanism had not assessed the conditions with the required frequency and comprehension - Court must be wary and is wary of inflicting an impossible burden of evidence gathering on respondents where that type of evidence cannot exist because of lack of funds - need to differentiate between minimum standards and inhuman and degrading treatment - 3m² is the relevant minimum standard for Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights – not  all prisoners are held in conditions of 3m² - new prison places - whether the new information is capable of supporting a conclusion that there is a systemic deficiency in the conditions of detention to raise concerns about treatment that may not be in compliance with Article 3 - the Court is entitled to assess whether there are substantial grounds for believing that this individual respondent is at real risk of being exposed to those conditions which he asserts would amount to a breach of Article 3 rights -  failed to meet minimum threshold of conditions which would amount to inhuman and degrading treatment - principle of mutual confidence extends to institutions of the member states, in particular those concerned in the field of criminal justice, such as prosecuting authorities and indeed prison authorities - of relevance that the respondent has not engaged in any way with the particular detention centre in which it is indicated he will be detained - his evidence about prison conditions has been put forward at a level of generality - not satisfied that the respondent has established by evidence that there are substantial grounds for believing that he is at real risk of being held in conditions which would amount to a violation of Article 3 – occasions when reductions in required minimum personal space of 3m² may not violate Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights - evidence does not establish that there is a real risk of this particular respondent being subjected to treatment that would be inhuman and degrading by virtue of the prison conditions in Poland – principles governing assessment of Article 8 rights in extradition cases – no culpable delay – extradition not a disproportionate interference with his private rights – Court ordered his surrender.