Prisons and pre-trial detention centres court concerning the possibility of refusing to execute European arrest warrants (EAWs) or making them conditional upon obtaining, from an issuing Member State, information enabling the verification of whether detention conditions are consistent with fundamental rights, because the German court took the view that living conditions in penitentiary establishments of issuing States (Hungary and Romania) violate fundamental rights, in particular the provisions of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union prohibiting inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The German court also noted that the ECHR held in its judgments of 10 June 2014 and 10 March 2015 that Romania and Hungary violated fundamental rights due to overpopulation which is typical of their prisons32. In the present case, the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg ruled that the execution of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) should be postponed if there is a real risk of inhuman or degrading treatment by virtue of conditions of detention of the person concerned in the issuing Member State. If the existence of that risk cannot be discounted within a reasonable time, the executing judicial authority must decide whether the surrender procedure should be brought to an end. This ruling may have a direct impact on the effectiveness of the execution of European arrest warrants issued by Polish courts. A State seised of a European Arrest Warrant will be able to verify what living conditions in Polish penitentiary establishments look like, to take into account, among others, small living space per prisoner, the case law of the ECHR or CPT and CAT recommendations issued for the Polish authorities. In the opinion of the NPM, an analysis of the findings of fact may lead to finding by a Polish court, which is seised of a EAW application, that the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment was violated or result in postponing its application or even bringing the surrender procedure to an end. When making their preventive visits, the employees of the OCHR pay particular attention to living conditions in multi-occupational residential cells. Although the national legislation does not regulate the maximum capacity of residential cells in penitentiary establishments, general principles arising primarily out of international recommendations support the conclusion that sanitary and hygienic conditions in residential cells with over a dozen persons do not comply with minimum standards necessary to respect the rights and dignity of persons locked up there. Such a position was also shared by the CPT in its Eleventh General Report33: In a number of countries visited by the CPT, particularly in central and eastern Europe, inmate accommodation often consists of large capacity dormitories which contain all or most of the facilities used by prisoners on a daily basis, such as sleeping and living areas as well as sanitary facilities. Cf. judgments in the following cases: Vociu against Romania, Application No 22015/10; Bujorean against Romania, Application No 13054/12; Mihai Laurenţiu Marin against Romania, Application No 79857/12; Constantin Aurelian Burlacu against Romania, Application No 51318/12; Varga and others against Hungary, Applications Nos 14097/12, 45135/12, 73712/12, 34001/13, 44055/13 and 64586/13. 33 CPT/Inf (2001)16. 32 19