CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 17 avril 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s6CCEAD68 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#ff0000 } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC443675D { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD2857263 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s684F2214 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s25BD2B45 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sFD4D42B6 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s1B6AF0FA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s33C53B69 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s360DA689 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sEC2CB098 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB6F98828 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s132B84CB { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s93EDF1FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s3C0142D3 { margin-top:30pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72F8249F { font-family:Arial; display:none } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB1BD30C0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s804EF768 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6E0F97D0 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD1F936F5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s988F61DE { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s21F08A35 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s197FB613 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD2CEF84A { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s57221CB1 { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s30870011 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s40E9DAE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3E2DB4A0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8A9F351B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s95F1DE7F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8FA53EDF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sD777C0A5 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4991353C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.4pt; text-align:justify } .s13F94BE0 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.3pt } .s9F223FEE { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .s8ED1F3C2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6EF3B654 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8C50CFA1 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s2ED81498 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sCA71A5BA { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC31874BD { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5653C172 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC273AADF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF0D62E79 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF0957490 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8E011338 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s56E27C8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC1F0960A { margin-top:24pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sAB173E38 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s127C7598 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sD66C1369 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s81CCF55C { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .s48DB3670 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .sE9EC2BD3 { width:143.95pt; display:inline-block }       FOURTH SECTION           CASE OF PIECHOWICZ v. POLAND   (Application no. 20071/07)                 JUDGMENT     STRASBOURG   17 April 2012   FINAL   17/07/2012   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision . In the case of Piechowicz v. Poland , The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   David Thór Björgvinsson, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Päivi Hirvelä,   George Nicolaou,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 27 March 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 20071/07) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Mirosław Piechowicz (“the applicant”), on 12 April 2007. 2.     The applicant was represented by Mr W. Więcław, a lawyer practising in Lublin. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicant alleged, in particular, a violation of Article 3 of the Convention on account of the imposition of the so-called “dangerous detainee” regime on him and inadequate conditions of his detention. He further submitted that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive, in breach of Article 5 § 3. Invoking Article 5 § 4, the applicant complained that in the proceedings concerning the lawfulness of his detention during the investigation the principle of equality of arms had not been respected. The applicant also alleged a breach of Article 8 in that during his detention his contact with his family had been severely restricted and his correspondence had been routinely censored. 4.     On 26 October 2009 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article   29 § 1). 5.     On 18 February 2010 the President of the Chamber granted the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights leave to submit written comments, in accordance with Rule 44 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court. THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 6.     The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Lublin. A.     Partial disagreement as to certain facts of the case 7.     The applicant and the Government gave partly different statements in respect of certain facts of the case concerning the “dangerous detainee” regime, the conditions of the applicant’s detention and his contact with his family during his detention (see paragraphs 54-71 and 87-98 below). The remaining facts were not in dispute. B.     First set of criminal proceedings (case   no.   IX   K 1054/07; no   IX   K   31/11) 8.     On 21 June 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking committed together with other identified and yet unidentified persons. 9.     On 22 June 2006 the Lublin District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It   attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of   imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings by bringing to bear pressure on – unspecified – witnesses and co-suspects, in order to create favourable conditions for his defence. 10.     An appeal by the applicant against the detention order and further decisions extending his detention, and his numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to   release him, were all unsuccessful. 11.     In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on   15 September 2006 (to 20 December 2006) and 5 January 2007 (to   14   April 2007). In their decisions on the matter the authorities relied on   the original grounds given for his detention. The courts also stressed that, owing to the complexity of the case, the investigation had still not been completed. 12.     On 4 April 2007 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Lublin District Court. The applicant was charged with drug trafficking, attempted money laundering and obtaining a loan by deception. A.W., the applicant’s common-law wife ( konkubina ), was indicted on a charge of attempted money laundering in that she had attempted to invest the proceeds of crime received by the applicant from drug trafficking in the purchase of a car and entering into a bank loan agreement in order to conceal the criminal origins of the invested money. 13.     On 10 April 2007 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 14 July 2007 and then, on the latter date, until 14 October 2007. The courts repeated the original grounds for his detention. 14.     On 17 July 2007 the Lublin District Court made a severance order referring part of the charges to the Lublin Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ). Both the prosecutor and the applicant lodged interlocutory appeals against that decision. 15.     On 16 August 2007 the case in its entirety was referred to the Lublin Regional Court. However, on account of the subsequent amendment to the provisions governing the jurisdiction of criminal courts, the case was eventually referred back to the District Court on 30 October 2007. 16.     In the meantime, on   9 October 2007, the Lublin Regional Court had further extended the applicant’s detention until 14 January 2008, holding that evidence so far gathered sufficiently supported the suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It stressed the likelihood of a severe sentence of   imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the fact that he was a recidivist offender. 17.     During the court proceedings the applicant’s detention pending trial was extended on several occasions, namely on 28 December 2007 (to   14   April   2008), 11 April 2008 (to 30 June 2008), 27 June 2008 (to   30   September 2008), 23 July 2008 (to 24 October 2008). The courts repeated the grounds that had previously been given for keeping him in   custody. 18.     The trial was to start on 28 December 2007 but it was adjourned until 22   February 2008 due to the absence of one of the witnesses. 19.     On 22 February 2008 the trial was again adjourned because the presiding judge was ill. 20.     The first hearing was held on 28 March 2008. 21.     On 24 October 2008 the District Court decided that the applicant’s detention should no longer be continued but he remained in custody in the third set of criminal proceedings (see paragraphs 32-39 below). 22.     On 12 July 2011 the Lublin District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to a cumulative penalty of five years’ imprisonment and a fine. A.W. was convicted as charged and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on four-year probation. 23.     The proceedings are pending the parties’ appeals. C.     Second set of criminal proceedings (case no. IV K 413/06) 24.     On 22 June 2006 the Lublin District Court remanded the applicant in   custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion of his having committed robbery, theft and unlawful detention. It   attached importance to   the   likelihood of a severe sentence of   imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings by   bringing pressure to bear on witnesses and co-suspects in general – their names or any related circumstances were not specified. 25.     An appeal by the applicant against the detention order, and likewise his   further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to   release him were unsuccessful. 26.     In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on   7 September 2006 (to 30 December 2006) and 29 December 2006. In   their decisions on the matter the authorities relied on   the original grounds given for holding him in custody. 27.     On an unspecified date in December 2006 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Lublin District Court. The applicant was indicted on   charges of robbery, theft and unlawful detention. 28.     The first hearing was scheduled for 28 February 2007 but it was adjourned. The trial started on 15 March 2007. 29.     During the court proceedings the applicant’s detention pending trial was further extended on 17 April, 29   June and 23 October 2007 (to   31   January   2008), 29 January (to 31 March 2008) and 18 March 2008 (to   21   June 2008). The courts repeated the grounds that had previously been given for his continued detention. 30.     On 21 June 2008 the court decided that the applicant’s detention should no longer be continued in this case since the maximum statutory time-limit of two   years for pre-trial detention had expired. He was still detained on   remand in the first and the third set of criminal proceedings against him (see paragraphs 8 and 21 above and paragraphs 32 and 37 below). 31.     On 2 July 2009 the Lublin District Court gave judgment. The applicant was acquitted of all the offences with which he had been charged. D.     Third set of criminal proceedings (case no. IVK 220/08; IVK   394/08) 1.     The course of the proceedings and the applicant’s detention 32.     On 10 October 2007 the Lublin District Court remanded the applicant in   custody, relying on the suspicion that he had set up and organised a   criminal group involved in drug-trafficking. It   attached importance to   the   likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant, the serious nature of the offences of which he was suspected, the large quantities of drugs involved and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings. That risk was based on the assumption that, having regard to the leading role played by   him in the group, he might bring pressure to bear on witnesses or other suspects in general; no specific persons were named. 33.     An appeal by the applicant against the detention order, likewise his   further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to   release him were unsuccessful. In his submissions, the applicant first of all stressed that the evidence gathered had not supported sufficiently the suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. He maintained that the grounds given for his detention were vague and general and did not indicate any concrete circumstances justifying the risk that he would obstruct the course of the proceedings. He also stated that the prosecutor’s refusal to grant him access to the case file made it impossible for him to challenge the grounds for his continued detention. In its decision of 25 October 2007, rejecting his appeal against the order of 10 October 2007 the Lublin Regional Court held, among other things, the following: “It must be firmly stressed that the material gathered in the case [in the form of other accused’s testimonies and the results of searches carried out] makes it highly probable that [the applicant] had committed the offences with which he had been charged. ... The offence in question is liable to a maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment which, having regard to the social danger of the offences, the fact that [the applicant] acted together with other persons in an organised criminal group and made crime his permanent source of income, as well as to the quantity of drugs distributed and [the applicant’s] criminal record, supports the [lower court’s] conclusion as to the severity of the anticipated penalty. The District Court was also right in relying on the justified fear that [the applicant] might unlawfully influence statements of other persons. The realisation of the purposes of the investigation requires [the authorities] to make such actions impossible, in particular influencing the content of testimonies or evidence given by the accused. It must be added that, as demonstrated by evidence so far obtained, [the applicant] set up and led an organised criminal group and had a decisive say in all matters concerning its functioning. ... In these circumstances, the imposition of detention is entirely justified because other preventive measures would not be sufficient to ensure the proper course of the investigation.” 34.     In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on   8 January 2008 (to 9 April 2008) and 1 April 2008 (to 9 June 2008). In   their decisions the authorities relied on   the original grounds given for keeping him in custody, stressing, in particular, the severity of the penalty – up to eight years’ imprisonment. 35.     On 2 June 2008 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Lublin Regional Court. It comprised 36 charges brought against 17 accused. The applicant was indicted on charges of   drug ‑ trafficking committed as a leader of   an   organised criminal group. 36.     During the court proceedings the courts further extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on several occasions, namely on 5 June 2008 (to   9   October 2008), 7 October 2008 (to 9 January 2009), 30   December 2008 (to 9 April 2009), 7 April 2009 (to 7 June 2009), 27 May 2009 (to   27   August 2009), on 25 August 2009 (to 9 October 2009), on 7   October 2009 (to 9 December 2009) and on an unspecified subsequent date. The courts essentially repeated the grounds that had previously been given for his continued detention. In some decisions, they also relied on the highly complex nature of the case, stressing that the case file comprised 20   volumes, and the need to carry out time-consuming procedural actions (such, as for instance, the need to acquaint the accused with classified material – a process that lasted for some three weeks in August-September 2009). 37.     On 2 July 2010 the court released the applicant on bail and under police supervision, i.e. on condition that he would report weekly to a police station. It also imposed on the applicant a ban on leaving the country. 38.     On 16 June 2011 the Lublin Regional Court convicted the applicant of setting up and leading an organised criminal group and of participating in the distribution of large amounts of drugs. It sentenced him to a cumulative penalty of five years’ imprisonment and a fine. 39.     The proceedings are pending the parties’ appeals. 2.     Access to the investigation file no. VI Ds 54/07/S 40.     On 2 November 2007, in connection with his appeals against the detention order (see paragraphs 32-33 above) the applicant requested the Lublin Regional Prosecutor ( Prokurator Okręgowy ) to grant him access to   the investigation file and to allow him to obtain photocopies of some documents relating to the grounds given for his detention. 41.     On 8 November 2007 the prosecutor refused that request, relying on   the   important interests of the proceedings ( ważny interes postępowania ). The prosecutor observed that the investigation was still in progress and, in   these circumstances, the interests of the investigation outweighed the   applicant’s right to be acquainted with the evidence so far obtained by the prosecution. The applicant appealed. 42.     On 10 December 2007 the Lublin Deputy Regional Prosecutor upheld the refusal of 8 November 2007. He observed, in particular, that the right to   full disclosure of evidence gathered at the investigative stage of criminal proceedings was not absolute and could, in pursuit of a legitimate aim such as the protection of witnesses or secret sources of information or the interests of the investigation, be subject to limitations. It was also underlined that such limitations were even more stringent during the investigation as at that stage the principle of adversarial proceedings did not apply. 43.     On 27 December 2007 the applicant again asked the investigating prosecutor to grant him access to the case file in order to enable him to   make photocopies of certain parts of the file. He listed 86 relevant pages out of some 1,200 contained in the file. The applicant relied on Article 5 § 4 of the Convention and the principle of equality of arms, stressing that in   anticipation of the prosecutor’s request to the trial court for his detention to be further extended, he needed to inspect at least some parts of the evidence in order to challenge properly and effectively the lawfulness of his detention. In their requests, he added, the prosecution relied on evidence, premises and circumstances that were unknown to him, which made it   impossible for him to respond to the arguments adduced by them in the procedure for the extension of his detention. Lastly, the applicant invoked his constitutional right to defend himself. 44.     On 8 January 2008 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 9 April 2008 (see also paragraph 34 above). 45.     On 15 January 2008 the prosecutor, relying on Article 156 § 5 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Kodeks postępowania karnego ), refused to   grant the applicant access to the case file. The prosecutor observed that it   was already the second such request lodged within a short period of time. The only difference was that this time the applicant relied on   the   Constitution and international law. That being so, the grounds given for the previous refusal were still valid. It was stressed that the prosecutor in   his actions, in particular in assessing evidence, must be guided by the principle of objectivity and must respect the suspect’s defence rights. However, the prosecutor should first of all ensure the efficient and unimpeded course of the investigation. Since several other persons had been charged together with the applicant, the interests of the investigation required the prosecution to keep secret the findings of fact so far made in   order to secure an undisturbed process of obtaining evidence and to avoid any attempt to obstruct unlawfully the outcome of the investigation. As   regards the constitutional and international-law arguments advanced by   the applicant, the prosecutor considered that they had a marginal impact in the context of this decision since it had a legal basis in the Code of   Criminal Procedure. The applicant appealed. 46.     On 29 February 2008 the Lublin Deputy Regional Prosecutor upheld the   refusal, repeating the previous grounds. 47.     On 11 March 2008 the applicant made a subsequent request to the investigating prosecutor, asking for photocopies of certain documents contained in the case file. He listed a total of 97 relevant pages, out of some 1,500 currently contained in the file. He relied on the previous arguments, stressing that, given that his last detention order would expire on 9 April 2008, he   needed to get acquainted with at least the selected documents – without being given access to the entire case file – so as to be able to challenge effectively the likely prolongation of his detention. 48.     On 31 March 2008 the prosecutor rejected the request without giving any specific grounds for his refusal. 49.     On 1 April 2008 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 9 June 2008 (see paragraph 34 above). 50.     The applicant submitted that as of May 2008, i.e. the time when he had been about to be indicted before the Lublin District Court (see   paragraph 35   above), he still had no access to the file. E.     Censorship of the applicant’s correspondence 51.     The applicant submitted that during his detention his correspondence was continually censored by the authorities. He produced seven envelopes of the censored letters. 52.     Four envelopes bear a stamp that reads: “Censored, date ..., Prosecutor” ( Ocenzurowano, dnia   ... Prokurator ), a hand written date and an illegible signature. Those envelopes contained: 1)     one letter from the Main Police Headquarters ( Komenda Główna Policji ), censored on 2 August 2006; 2)     two letters from the Central Administration of Prison Service ( Centralny Zarząd Służby Więziennej ), censored on 19 October and 8   December 2006 respectively; 3)     one letter from the Warsaw Regional Inspectorate of Prison Service ( Okręgowy Inspektorat Służby Więziennej ), censored on 8 December 2006. Three envelopes bear a stamp that reads: “Censored, the Lublin Regional Court, received date ..., sent date ...” ( Cenzurowano, Sąd Okręgowy Lublin, otrzymano dnia ..., wysłano dnia   ... ), a stamped date and an illegible signature. The envelopes contained the following letters: 1)     from the applicant’s defence counsel; censored on 25 June 2007; 2)     from the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman and Degrading Treatment, censored on 13 August 2007; 3)     from the Office of the Committee for European Integration, censored on 16 August 2007. 53.     The applicant did not lodge a civil action for compensation for the infringement of his personal rights on account of censorship of his correspondence under Article 24 read in conjunction with Article 448 of the Civil Code. F.     Restrictions on the applicant’s contact with his family 1.     Contact with the son (a)     The applicant 54.     Between 21 June 2006 (when he was arrested in the first set of   proceedings) and 12 March 2007 (when he was indicted before the Lublin District Court), the applicant, despite numerous requests to that effect, was not allowed to receive visits from his son, M.P., born in 2004. 55.     Between 28 April and 10 October 2007 the applicant was granted several open visits ( widzenie przy stoliku ) from the child, who was brought to the remand centre by a certain N.S., a third party. 56.     On several occasions the applicant requested the Governor of the Lublin Remand Centre to have the standard 60-minute long visits from the son prolonged to 90   minutes. All his requests were dismissed as the authorities considered that the applicant’s behaviour was not “more than exemplary as   regards respecting the internal order in the remand centre and the prison rules” – a circumstance which justified granting visiting privileges. 57.     Between 10 October 2007 (when the applicant was remanded in custody in the third set of proceedings) and 3 December 2007 he was again not allowed to see his son. (b)     The Government 58.     The Government submitted that over the period from 21 June 2006 to 12 March 2007 the applicant had not asked for permission to receive visits from the son. 59.     They stated that between 10 October and 3 December 2007 the applicant did not receive visits from the son. 60.     The Government produced a detailed list of visits received by the applicant between 12 July 2006 and 19 January 2010. As from 3 December 2007 he received visits from his son on the following dates: 24 December 2007, 14 January, 11 February, 31   March, 21   April, 19 May, 23 June, 7 and 28   July, 11 and 25 August, 29 September, 13 and 20 October, 3 and 17   November and 22   December 2008. In 2009 the visits took place on 12   January, 2, 16 and 23 February, 9 and 30 March, 17 and 24 April, 11 and 18 May, 1 and 15 June, 6, 20 and 30 July, 3, 17 and 31 August, 13 and 28   September, 4 and 26 October, 8 and 22 November, 6, 20 and 27   December. Further visits took place on 10 and 17 January 2010. The child was initially accompanied by N.S and, as from 29 September 2008 by A.W., the applicant’s common-law wife and the mother of his son. (c)     Material in the Court’s file 61.     On 26 November 2007 W.W., the applicant’s defence counsel, made a declaration that reads, in so far as relevant, as follows: “As [the applicant’s] defence counsel from the date on which he had been detained on remand [in the first set of the criminal proceedings against him], i.e. 22 June 2006 to 4 April 2007 I made numerous requests on his behalf to the investigating prosecutor, asking him to issue permission for my client to have a visit form his 3 ‑ year old son M. ... Despite my repeated requests, I did not obtain such permission. The grounds given for these decisions referred to [such circumstances as] the child’s interests and the possibility of obtaining additional evidence or new facts from my client. Throughout the entire investigation, the prosecutor issued only one permission in March 2007, which was about the time when [the applicant] was indicted before the court. I should add that this put a severe strain on my client and had a negative impact on his psychological state.” 62.     On 7 December 2007 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor informed the applicant that he had granted N.S. a closed visit ( widzenie przez telefon ) and that the latter was allowed to bring the applicant’s son with him. The visit took place in a special room with a Perspex partition separating the applicant from his visitors. The applicant was informed that in the future he would be granted one such visit from the son monthly and that visits enabling them to have direct contact could not be allowed at that stage of   the procedure. 2.     Contact with the common-law wife 63.     From 21 June 2006 to 29 September 2008 the applicant was not allowed to   receive visits from A.W. Initially, the investigation authorities informed him that since A.W. was to be heard as a witness in the first set of criminal proceedings against him she could not obtain permission for visits. Later, on an unspecified date in 2006, in those proceedings A.W. was charged with money laundering committed together with the applicant. She was indicted on that charge before the Lublin District Court on 4 April 2007 (see paragraph 12 above). On this basis, the authorities refused to grant her permissions for visits for some further two years. 64.     On 8 January 2007 the applicant was allowed to have a 60-minute long conversation on the prison phone with A.W. On 29 September 2008 the applicant was granted the first open visit from A.W., who was allowed to bring their son with her. Since then the applicant has been granted on average 2 visits from her and the son monthly (see also paragraphs 60 above and 70 below). 3     Contact with the mother (a)     The applicant 65.     The applicant maintained that from 21 June 2006 until 12 March 2007 he had not been allowed to receive visits from C.K., his mother, on the ground that she was to be heard as a witness in the first set of criminal proceedings against him. (b)     The Government 66 .     The Government submitted that the applicant’s mother visited the applicant in prison on 6 December 2006 and 12 March 2007. On the first date, the applicant was granted an open visit. The second visit, in which M.K., his son, also participated was closed. The applicant was also allowed to have a 60-minute long conversation on the prison phone with his mother on 11 October 2006 and 30 January 2007. (c)     Material in the Court’s file 67.     A copy of the applicant’s request of 7 March 2007 for permission to have a visit from his mother and his son, addressed to the Lublin Regional Prosecutor’s Office ( Prokuratura Okręgowa ), shows that on the original request the prosecutor made a handwritten note: “I grant permission for a supervised visit; 08.3.2007” and that the permission document was given to the person concerned on 9 March 2007. 4.     List of visits received by the applicant during his detention from 12   July 2006 to 19 January 2010 68.     The list of visits supplied by the Government shows that between 12   July 2006 and 19 January 2010 the applicant received 147 visits, of which 78 were meetings with his defence counsel (including one together with a police officer), 2 meetings with police officers, 2 meetings with prosecutors and 1 meeting with a notary. The meetings with the defence counsel took place once a month on average. The remaining 64 visits involved the applicant’s family. They lasted from 30 to 60 minutes but on most occasions were 60-minute long. 69.     At the initial stage of his detention the applicant was only allowed to have a 60-minute long conversation on the prison phone with his mother on 11 October 2006. He received the first family visit on 6 December 2006 – it was an open visit from his mother and lasted 60 minutes. 70.     Later, he was allowed to have one 60-minute long phone conversation with his common-law wife, A.W., on 8 January 2007. He was allowed to have a second phone conversation with his mother on 30 January 2007. On 12 March 2007 the applicant received the first – supervised – visit from his son, M.P., who was brought to the remand centre by the applicant’s mother. On 29 September 2008 the applicant received the first visit from A.W., who was allowed to bring their son with her. It was an open visit that lasted 60 minutes. 71.     As regards the visits which took place after the applicant was classified as a “dangerous detainee” (see paragraph 74 below), i.e. from 12   October 2007 onwards, the list of visits supplied by the Government shows that the applicant received 102 visits altogether, of which 53 were meetings with his lawyers, 1 with a police officer, 1 with a notary and 2   with prosecutors. The 45 remaining visits were from his family. G.     Imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime 1.     Undisputed facts 72.     On 21 June 2006 the applicant was placed in the Radom Remand Centre ( Areszt Śledczy ). On 8 December 2006 he was transferred to the Lublin Remand Centre. 73.     Between 23 February and 14 June 2007 the applicant was placed in   a   solitary cell for dangerous detainees (a so-called “tymczasowo aresztowany niebezpieczny” ; in the relevant legal provisions referred to as „ tymczasowo aresztowany stwarzający poważne zagrożenie społeczne albo poważne zagrożenie dla bezpieczeństwa aresztu” ) without having been classified as such. The authorities of the Lublin Remand Centre justified their decision by security reasons. At that time, the applicant was not subjected to the stringent regime for dangerous detainees. 74.     On 14 June 2007 the applicant was transferred to a cell for regular prisoners. 75.     On 12 October 2007 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission ( Komisja Penitencjarna ) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. It considered that it was necessary to place him in a cell for dangerous detainees as   he had been charged with numerous offences, including unlawful detention and violent robbery, committed as a leader of an organised criminal group. The commission also referred to the applicant’s serious lack of moral character ( wysoki stopień demoralizacji ). The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against this decision. 76.     From 12 October 2007, when the applicant was placed in a cell for dangerous detainees, he remained under increased supervision. The cell, including its sanitary facilities, was constantly monitored via close-circuit television. He was subjected to a body search every time he left and entered the cell, which in practice meant that he had to strip naked in front of   prison guards and was required to carry out deep knee-bends. The body search was performed in a separate room, which was monitored and its recording was viewable in a duty room. 77.     The applicant, whenever he was outside his cell, including his appearances at court hearings or medical visits, wore the so-called “joined shackles” ( kajdanki zespolone ) on his hands and feet. Those shackles consisted of   hand ‑ cuffs and fetters joined together with chains. 78.     On 9   February 2008 he was taken to the Lublin Civil Hospital, where he underwent a number of medical examinations and tests in   connection with severe pains in the abdominal cavity. He remained there for several hours, being handcuffed and fettered. He was all the time accompanied and watched by 3 policemen. 79.     The applicant was allowed to spend one hour per day in an outdoor yard but was segregated from other detainees. 80.     Between 20 December 2007 and 6 February 2008, at the applicant’s request, another inmate, a certain L.G. was placed in his cell. Later, from 29   February to 14 April 2008 and from 6 August to 22 September 2008 he had one inmate assigned to his cell. 81.     Every three months the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission reviewed, and upheld, its decision classifying the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. The relevant decisions were limited to a short description of the nature of the suspicions or charges laid against him which, as such, justified the maintaining of the previous decisions. For example, the decision of 31 July 2008 read, in so far as relevant, as follows: “Pursuant to Article 212a § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences, the Penitentiary Commission assigned [the applicant] to the category of detainees who should be placed in a remand centre in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre. The decision was based on the suspicion that he had a very high rank in organised crime structures and that he was a person displaying a serious lack of moral character. The detainee is suspected of committing offences of unlawful detention and robbery, which involved particular suffering for victims. On 10 October 2007 a fresh detention order was issued by the Lublin District Court, from which it transpired that he was suspected of setting up and leading an organised criminal group involved in the illegal distribution of large amounts of drugs. For this reason, the Commission upholds its decision to classify him in the category of detainees who should be placed in a remand centre in conditions ensuring increased protection of society and the security of the remand centre because the grounds for the further application of Article 212a § 1 of [the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences] did not cease to exist.” 82.     The applicant appealed against all the decisions, arguing that the authorities violated the provisions of the Code of Execution of   Criminal Sentences ( Kodeks karny wykonawczy ) relating to that matter. He also complained about being regularly subjected to a body search, constant monitoring of his cell and the generally inadequate equipment of   the solitary cell. For instance, in his appeal against the Penitentiary Commission’s decision of 2 July 2009, upholding his classification as a “dangerous detainee”, he submitted, among other things, the following: “ ... Since 12 October 2007 I have been classified as a ‘dangerous detainee’ .... This decision is arbitrary and was given without any evaluation of the circumstances that had given rise to classify me as such. I am suspected of drug trafficking in an organised criminal group ... and for this reason I was assigned the “dangerous” category. Article 212a § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences obliges the prison administration to evaluate the circumstances that justify the maintaining of this classification. Regrettably, the assessment of [the need to maintain it] is illusory or non-existent and the subsequent extensions of the classification as ‘dangerous’ are, so to speak, automatic. The very fact that I was charged with acting in an organised criminal group is not sufficient to consider me a dangerous person, and certainly not sufficient to maintain this classification for 2 years, having regard to the extent of the interference with [my] civil rights and liberties ... . Relying on this classification, the Lublin Remand Centre subjects me to repression and interferences: -   stripping me naked (including underwear) and inspection of the anus – at least twice a day; -   isolating me from all persons (I am in a solitary cell) for more than 500 days; -   watching me during my physiological acts in the toilet; -   making it impossible for me to participate in any kind of sports activity in the prison sports field (I do not leave the cell at all); -   walking me in joined shackles all the time. Given the degree of the interference in my life, which amounts to daily ill-treatment and which is not based on a court conviction, one should ask to what extent a mere charge of participating in a criminal group suffices to treat me in this way, especially over the lengthy period of 2 years. For that reason, the acts of the prison administration are in breach of the law, in particular Article 3 of [the Convention]. ... This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that for my part there has never been any danger to the functioning of the remand centre – this is confirmed by the fact that there has been no single instance of the use of force against me. ...[T]he prison administration subjects me to these practices without good reason, and the status of ‘dangerous’ serves, so to speak, as a measure of prevention, whereas this status should be restricted to the necessary minimum – otherwise it becomes an arbitrary interference with the most intimate spheres of human life. ...” 83.     All the applicant’s subsequent, similar appeals were d