CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 septembre 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 } .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 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sC8DC19B9 { width:32.95pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .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 } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s13F94BE1 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.2pt } .s471F7CE { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s13F94BE0 { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.3pt } .sC8FE61A5 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; letter-spacing:-0.3pt } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8F4EE4B8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:18pt; 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 } .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 } .s1913A4C6 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .sA1CDB767 { margin-top:6pt; 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 } .s281358E1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .s86439055 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .sE54F50AA { width:181.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF DOCHNAL v. POLAND   (Application no. 31622/07)               JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG   18   September   2012     FINAL   18/12/2012   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Dochnal 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,   Ledi Bianku,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having deliberated in private on 28   August 2012, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no.   31622/07) 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   Marek Alojzy Dochnal (“the   applicant”), on 13   July 2007. 2.     The applicant was represented by Ms   M.   Gąsiorowska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 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, that his detention pending investigation was contrary to Article   5 of the Convention, that he had had no contact with his family, contrary to Article   8 of the Convention, and that the criminal proceedings against him were politically motivated, contrary to Article   18 of the Convention. 4.     On 8   January 2008 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same time (Article   29 §   1). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Katowice. A.     The first set of criminal proceedings 6.     The applicant, a businessman and lobbyist, lived in Warsaw and London and was a resident of Monaco. On 26   September 2004 the applicant was arrested at Krakow airport. 7.     On 28   September 2004 the Łódź District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded the applicant in custody in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had offered a bribe to a Member of Parliament, A.P., in connection with a privatisation process. The court established that only detention would secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given that the applicant did not have a permanent address in Poland. It also referred to the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant and to a risk that he would influence witnesses. 8.     The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Łódź Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) on 20   October 2004. 9.     On 21   December 2004 and 22   March and 21   June 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention. It relied on the grounds given previously. 10.     The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed. 11.     On 5   March and 23   April 2005 the applicant testified before the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry ( Komisja Śledcza ) on the “PKN Orlen” case. The Commission subsequently notified the Prosecutor General that the applicant had cooperated with it. 12.     On 21   September and 21   December 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) extended the applicant’s detention pending the outcome of the investigation. The court referred to the extraordinary complexity of the case, which concerned charges of corruption involving the highest public officials, and reiterated that other preventive measures would not secure the applicant’s attendance at the trial. 13.     The applicant’s detention was then extended by the Court of Appeal on 8   February, 10   May, 21   June, 20   September and 6   December 2006. The court found that there were circumstances justifying the fact that the investigation in the applicant’s case had not yet been terminated by the prosecutor. On the last of these dates the court also decided that the applicant could be released on bail in the amount of 1,000,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 260,000 euros (EUR)). 14.     On 5   January 2007 the pre ‑ trial detention of the former MP A.P., and the applicant’s assistant, K.P., was lifted. The applicant’s appeals against all the decisions extending his detention were dismissed. His numerous applications for release were also to no avail. 15.     On 20   January 2007 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant, A.P., and K.P. The applicant was accused of several offences of corruption. The bill of indictment was over 200 pages long. The prosecutor requested that eighty ‑ four witnesses be heard and statements from a further forty ‑ two witnesses be read out. He relied on 458   pieces of evidence. 16.     On 9   February 2007 the applicant’s detention was further extended. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 17.     On 11   April 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and decided to release the applicant on bail, fixing the amount at PLN   600,000. The court established that the evidence in the case had been obtained, the bill of indictment had been lodged with the trial court and the applicant had a permanent place of residence in Poland. 18.     On 15   June 2007 the Warsaw District Court changed the order and fixed bail at PLN   500,000. The prosecutor lodged an appeal. 19.     On 17   July 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal, finding that there was no evidence that the applicant would try to influence witnesses or otherwise interfere with the proper course of the proceedings. The court also observed that the applicant had not paid the bail set by the District Court, probably because he had remained in pre ‑ trial detention in connection with another set of proceedings. 20.     In the meantime, on 30   April 2007, the Warsaw District Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction to try the applicant’s case, and transferred it to the Zgierz District Court. On 14   May 2007 the Warsaw District Court corrected an “obvious editorial mistake” in its decision of 30   April 2007, by indicating that the trial should be conducted before the Pabianice District Court. The applicant’s lawyer appealed against that decision, and on 17   July 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court allowed the appeal, on the ground that the designation of a trial court should not have been considered a matter of editorial revision. Finally, on 17   July 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court decided that the Pabianice District Court should hear the applicant’s case. The trial court scheduled the first hearing for 27   September 2007, but it was cancelled. 21.     On 10   October 2007 the Pabianice District Court fixed the amount of bail for the applicant’s release at PLN   300,000 (approximately EUR   84,000). The court established that bail in this amount would secure the applicant’s attendance at the trial. The prosecutor lodged an appeal, but it was dismissed on 30   October 2007. 22.     It appears that the applicant paid the bail, and his detention with respect to this set of proceedings ended. Nevertheless, he was not released (see below). 23.     On 25   June 2012 the Pabianice District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment and a fine (II   K 293/07). The judgment is not final and the applicant applied to receive a reasoned copy of the judgment with a view to lodging an appeal against it. B.     The second set of criminal proceedings (Ap II Ds 54/05/s) 1.     The investigation and pre ‑ trial detention 24.     On 8   March 2005 the applicant was charged with abetting an offence of bribery ( podżeganie do przekupstwa ), contrary to Article   229 taken together with Article   18 of the Criminal Code. The content of the charge was classified “top secret” ( ściśle tajne ) and thus the details of the charge do not appear on the reasoned decision to charge the applicant. The applicant alleged that this and subsequent charges were a reaction to his statements made before the “PKN Orlen” Parliamentary Commission (see paragraph   11 above). 25.     In January and November 2006 the applicant was charged in connection with various counts of money laundering and tax evasion (causing damage to the State Treasury in the amount of EUR   1,900). Subsequently, his wife and mother ‑ in ‑ law were charged in connection with the latter offence. The applicant’s mother ‑ in ‑ law was arrested but later released on bail. 26.     On 26   November 2006 the Katowice District Court decided to remand the applicant in custody in connection with this set of proceedings. 27.     On 8   December 2006 the charges against the applicant were further supplemented with the addition of other tax ‑ related offences. 28.     On 19   February and 22   June 2007 the Katowice District Court further extended the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention. It considered that there was a risk that the applicant would influence witnesses or tamper with the proper course of the proceedings. The court also referred to the likelihood that a heavy sentence would be imposed on the applicant. The applicant appealed against these decisions. 29.     The appeal against the decision of 19   February 2007 was firstly rejected on 18   April 2007 as lodged out of time. The applicant’s lawyers further appealed against this decision. On 9   May 2007 the Katowice Regional Court allowed that appeal and quashed the decision of 18   April 2007. On 6   June 2007 the appeal against the decision of 19   February 2007 was decided on the merits and dismissed by the Katowice Regional Court. The court disagreed that the allegations against the applicant were unfounded, and considered that extensive evidence had been gathered justifying the reasonable suspicion against the applicant (the evidence included bank documents, contracts, correspondence, and statements from witnesses and the applicant). 30.     On 18   October 2007 the State Prosecutor ( Prokurator Krajowy ) gave a decision authorising a search of the applicant’s cell and seizure of illegal items, in particular drugs and other psychotropic substances. On the same day a search of the applicant’s cell was conducted. No illegal items were found. However, the authorities seized two books containing Sudoku puzzles, which also contained notes written by the applicant. 31.     On 23   October 2007 the Katowice District Court dismissed the prosecutor’s request for a further extension of the applicant’s detention. The court decided that the applicant could be released on bail, which it set at PLN   500,000 (approximately EUR   140,000). The court referred to the lengthy imposition of the most severe preventive measure on the applicant, who should be presumed innocent, and considered that his pre ‑ trial detention had become a criminal sanction in violation of the principles of domestic criminal law and of international law. It also noted that the prosecution had collected by that time a huge amount of evidence against the applicant (the case file amounted to 227 volumes) and should be able to terminate the investigation. The prosecutor appealed against this decision. 32.     On 29   October 2007 the Katowice Regional Court allowed the prosecutor’s appeal and quashed the decision allowing the applicant to be released on bail. It also extended the applicant’s detention until 31   January 2008. 33.     On 28   January 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court decided to dismiss the prosecutor’s request and not to extend the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention. 34.     The applicant was released on 31   January 2008. 35.     On 19   February 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the prosecutor and decided to impose a preventive measure on the applicant, namely police supervision and a ban on leaving the country. The court considered that the total length of the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention, imposed in two sets of proceedings but taken cumulatively, amounted to three years and four months, as the applicant had been arrested on 28   September 2004. The court thus dismissed the prosecutor’s allegation that only the length of the second set of the proceedings should be taken into consideration and that therefore the detention could be extended further. 36.     On 7   August 2008 the applicant was arrested again. A new charge relating to forgery of a foreign driving licence was added to the original charges against him. 37.     On 9   August 2008 the Katowice Court of Appeal decided to extend the applicant’s detention. 38.     The applicant appealed against that decision; on 10   September 2008 the Katowice Court of Appeal shortened the period by which the applicant’s detention was extended. 39.     On 25   September 2008 the Katowice Court of Appeal further extended the applicant’s detention. An appeal against this decision was dismissed on 29   October 2008. 40.     On 5   November 2008 the Katowice Court of Appeal extended his detention. The applicant appealed. 41.     On 21   January 2009 the Katowice Court of Appeal decided to release the applicant on bail of PLN   3,000,000 (approximately EUR   690,000). It appears that the applicant paid the bail. 42.     On 20   February 2009 the applicant was released from detention. 43.     Between September 2009 and March 2010 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor discontinued several sets of investigations in connection with the following charges against the applicant: owning a forged driving licence issued by British Honduras (whose name has been Belize since 1973), shortcomings in preparation of yearly reports of activity of a limited liability company, lack of care in storing ammunition for his legally owned gun so it was accessible to his wife, and passing to another person two joints of marijuana, as there was no evidence that the offences had been committed. 44.     On 8   September 2010 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor discontinued the investigation in connection with the charge against the applicant of abetting an offence of bribery contrary to Article   229 taken together with Article   18 of the Criminal Code (the charge of 8   March 2005, see paragraph   24 above). The prosecutor considered that there was no evidence that the offence had been committed. Since the materials pertaining to the charge were classified as secret, the written reasons for the decision were also considered secret and were deposited in the secret registry of the prosecutor’s office. 45.     On 21   January, 4   March and 21   July 2010, and on 21   February 2012 the Katowice Appellate Prosecutor lodged bills of indictment against the applicant. On 9   December 2011 the prosecutor discontinued the investigation as regards a number of remaining charges. 46.     The remaining part of the investigation is pending before the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor (no.   Ap V Ds. 6/09/s). 2.     Access to the case file 47.     On 29   November 2006 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s requests for leave to consult the case file against him. The decision was upheld on 12   January 2007. In 2007 the applicant’s lawyers attempted on at least eight occasions to obtain leave to consult the case file, without success. All those refusals of permission were upheld at the appellate stage. The prosecutor considered on each occasion that the investigation was multi ‑ layered and complex, and that the case file included classified documents and information which, if disclosed to the accused or his lawyers, would damage the proper course of the pending investigation. 48.     On 25   January 2008 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor decided to allow the applicant and his lawyers partial access to the case file. The prosecutor scheduled consultation of the file between 5   May and 14   August 2008. 49.     On 20   November 2008 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor granted further partial access to the case file. 50.     In 2009 the applicant and his lawyers made further unsuccessful applications for access to the case file. Finally, on 19   November 2009 the prosecutor allowed them partial access to it. 3.     Proceedings under the 2004 Act 51.     On 18   October 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint that his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached in respect of the investigation carried out by the prosecutor (no.   Ap V Ds. 6/09/s), and asked for just satisfaction. He relied on the amended Law of 17   June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and to a trial within   a   reasonable time ( Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony   do   rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) (“the 2004 Act”). 52.     On 22   December 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed the complaint and awarded the applicant PLN   10,000 (which amounted to EUR   2,300 at the material time). The court considered that the investigation in the instant case started on 20   July 2004 and was still pending. Although it agreed with the prosecutor that the case was complex, it noted that there had been many delays and that many of the actions could have been carried out earlier. The court also instructed the prosecutor to intensify his activity in the case, so that the investigation could be terminated by 30   March 2010. 53.     In March 2011 the applicant lodged a second complaint under the 2004 Act complaining that the investigation (no.   Ap V Ds. 6/09/s) was still pending before the prosecutor. 54.     On 27   April 2011 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. It examined the course of the investigation since 30   March 2010 and considered that the prosecutor had been very active and managed to terminate the investigation as regards many of the charges against the applicant either by lodging bills of indictment or by dropping the charges. In spite of all the efforts it had not been possible to terminate the investigation in respect of the main charge against the applicant. This failure however did not justify finding a breach of the applicant’s right to have the proceedings concluded within a reasonable time. C.     Family visits 55.     On 10   December 2004 the applicant’s wife visited the applicant in the detention centre after being granted leave by the prosecutor. It appears that up to 5   October 2006 she visited him at least eighteen times, including twice with their older child. 56.     On 9   January 2007 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor informed the applicant’s wife that she had to seek leave to visit the applicant from two prosecutors conducting two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant, and that there was no right of appeal against the prosecutor’s decisions to refuse visiting rights. 57.     Between October 2006 and the applicant’s release on 31   January 2008 all requests by the applicant’s wife for visits were refused. In particular, the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor dismissed requests made on 8   January, 28   February, 12   March, 29   May, 25   June and 17   December 2007. The decisions contained no reasoning and no appeal lay against them. 58.     On 6   February 2007 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor informed the applicant in a letter that since his wife had been heard as a witness in the second set of proceedings against him it was not possible to grant her leave to visit the applicant. On 28   May 2007 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor informed the applicant’s wife in a letter that since 14   February 2007 she had been a suspect in one of the cases, so her requests to visit the applicant would not be allowed. 59.     On 20   February and 12   March 2007 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s request for leave to receive a visit from his mother. The letter of refusal provides no reasons for that decision. D.     Seizure   60.     On 10   October 2004 the Łódź Appeal Prosecutor decided to seize the applicant’s assets. That decision was amended on 10   February 2005 in that the prosecutor decided to seize shares in the applicant’s company, L., shares in the public company S., and money deposited on his bank accounts up to the maximum amount of the fine provided by the criminal law, namely PLN   720,000 (approximately EUR   200,000). It appears that that decision was upheld by the Łódź District Court on 18   February 2005. 61.     On 1   March 2005 the Appeal Prosecutor decided to seize further assets of the applicant and considered that the maximum amount of fines that could be imposed on him for tax offences was PLN   12,000,000. It appears that this decision was amended by the Łódź District Court on 15   March 2005 in that the sum to be seized by the authorities was limited to PLN   8,015,997 (approximately EUR   2,224,000). 62.     On 27   April 2007 the court’s bailiff informed the applicant that he had seized his bank accounts by way of enforcement of the prosecutors’ decisions. 63.     In May 2007 the bailiff seized the applicant’s shares in a company   D., and subsequently sold them. II.     RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE 64.     The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of   detention during judicial proceedings ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ), the   grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other “preventive measures” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are stated in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Gołek v.   Poland , no.   31330/02, §§   27 ‑ 33, 25   April 2006, and Celejewski v.   Poland , no.   17584/04, §§   22 ‑ 23, 4   August   2006. 65.     Article   156 §   5 of the Code concerns access to the file during investigation. It provides: “Unless otherwise provided by law, during preparatory proceedings parties, defence counsel, and legal representatives shall be allowed to consult files and make certified copies and photocopies, but only with the permission of the person conducting the preparatory proceedings. With the permission of a prosecutor and in exceptional circumstances access to files in preparatory proceedings may be given to another person.” 66.     The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court’s decisions in the cases of   Charzyński v.   Poland no.   15212/03 (dec.), §§   12 ‑ 23, ECHR   2005 ‑ V, and   Ratajczyk v.   Poland no.   11215/02 (dec.), ECHR   2005 ‑ VIII, and the judgment in the case of Krasuski v.   Poland , no.   61444/00, §§   34 ‑ 46, ECHR   2005 ‑ V. 67.     Article   217 §   1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences of   1997, as applicable at the material time, provided as follows: “A detainee is allowed to receive visitors, provided he obtains permission from the authority at whose disposal he remains [investigating prosecutor at the investigative stage or from the trial court once the trial has begun]. If the detainee remains at the disposal of several authorities, it is necessary to obtain permission from all of them, unless they decide otherwise.” Other relevant domestic law and practice concerning family visits is outlined in the judgment Gradek v.   Poland , no.   39631/06, §§   20 ‑ 24, 8   June 2010. THE LAW I.     THE GOVERNMENT’S REQUEST FOR THE APPLICATION TO BE STRUCK OUT UNDER ARTICLE 37 OF THE CONVENTION 68.     On 1   September 2009 the Government submitted a unilateral declaration requesting the Court to strike out the application in so far as it relates to the applicant’s complaint under Article   5 §   3 of the Convention. The applicant objected to the proposal. 69.     Having studied the terms of the Government’s unilateral declaration, the Court considers, in the particular circumstances of the applicant’s case, that it does not provide a sufficient basis for concluding that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue its examination of the case (see Choumakov v   Poland (no.   2) , no.   55777/08, §   40, 1   February 2011, and Ruprecht v.   Poland , no.   39912/06, §   27, 21   February 2012 ). 70.     This being so, the Court rejects the Government’s request to strike this part of the application out of its list of cases under Article   37 of the Convention and will accordingly pursue its examination of the admissibility and merits of the case. II.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   5 §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 71.     The applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive. He relied on Article   5 §   3 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows: “Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph   1   (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.” 72.     The Government failed to submit any observations. A.     Admissibility 73.     The Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35 §   3   (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. B.     Merits 1.     Period to be taken into consideration 74.     The applicant’s detention in the first set of proceedings started on 26   September 2004, when he was arrested. On 26   November 2006 the court imposed pre ‑ trial detention in connection with the second set of proceedings. The applicant’s detention continued without interruption until his release on 31   January 2008. Therefore, in both sets of proceedings the applicant remained in continued and uninterrupted detention for a period of three years and four months (see Piechowicz v.   Poland , no.   20071/07, §   188, 17   April 2012). The Court notes that the domestic courts also considered that the above ‑ mentioned periods should be considered cumulatively, although the prosecutor severed some charges into separate proceedings (see paragraph   35 above). On 7   August 2008, after six months spent at liberty, the applicant was arrested again in connection with previous charges. He was detained for over six months, until 20   February 2009. The Court therefore considers that the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention amounted to three years and ten months (see Mitev v.   Bulgaria , no.   40063/98, §   102, 22   December 2004). 2.     The Court’s assessment (a)     General principles 75.     The Court recalls that the general principles regarding the right “to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article   5 §   3 of the Convention were stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła cited above, §   110 et seq , and McKay v.   the United Kingdom [GC], no.   543/03, §§   41-44, ECHR   2006-..., with further references) (b)     Application of the above principles in the present case 76.     In their detention decisions, the authorities, in addition to the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, relied principally on three grounds, namely (1) the serious nature of the offences with which he had been charged, (2) the severity of the penalty to which he was liable, and (3)   the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence or try to influence the witnesses. In addition, the courts underlined the particular complexity of the case. 77.     The Court accepts that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant of having committed serious offences could initially warrant his detention. Also, the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings constituted valid grounds for the applicant’s initial detention. 78.     However, with the passage of time, those grounds became less and less relevant. The Court must therefore establish whether the other grounds adduced by the courts – namely, the severity of the anticipated sentence and the risk that the applicant would disrupt the proceedings – were “relevant” and “sufficient” (see Kudła cited above, §   111). 79.     According to the judicial authorities, the likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed on the applicant, created a presumption that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. However, the Court would reiterate that, while the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding or reoffending, the severity of the charges cannot by itself justify long periods of pre-trial detention (see   Michta v.   Poland , no.   13425/02, §§   49, 4   May 2006). 80.     Furthermore, the Court notes that in all the decisions extending the applicant’s detention, no specific substantiation of the risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence, intimidate witnesses or otherwise disrupt the proceedings emerged. In the absence of any other factor capable of showing that the risk relied on actually existed, this argument cannot be accepted in the context of the entire period of the applicant’s detention. 81.     Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes that the grounds given by the domestic authorities could not justify the overall period of the applicant’s detention. In these circumstances it is not necessary to examine whether the proceedings were conducted with special diligence. 82.     There has accordingly been a violation of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention. III.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 4 OF THE CONVENTION AS REGARDS ACCESS TO THE CASE FILE 83.     The applicant further complained under Article   5 §   4 of the Convention that in the second set of criminal proceedings he did not have access to his case file. He submitted that this limited to a great extent his opportunity to challenge the decisions extending his pre ‑ trial detention. The   applicant underlined that it placed him at a significant disadvantage vis ‑ à ‑ vis the prosecutor, who had unlimited access to his case file. The relevant part of Article   5 of the Convention provides as follows: “4.     Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful.” 84.     The Government contested that argument. They maintained that the applicant had had unrestricted contact with his lawyers and they had eventually been allowed access to the case file. 85.     The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3 of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 86.     The Court observes that the complaint relates to the second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant in which he was charged in 2005 and 2006 and which are still pending either at the preparatory stage or before trial courts. In this set of proceedings the applicant was remanded in custody on 26   November 2006, and immediately afterwards made a request to consult his case file. This and subsequent requests were all dismissed by the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor (see paragraphs   47 ‑ 50 above). Thus, until the applicant’s release on 31   January 2008, neither the applicant nor his lawyers had access to the case file. The first decision of the prosecutor allowing partial access to the case file had been given in January 2008. It appears that the applicant’s lawyer subsequently consulted those volumes of the case file to which they had been given access. Afterwards, in November 2008 and in 2009, partial access to the case file was again granted. 87.     The Court reiterates that a certain degree of access to the case file, if only to such an extent as to afford the detainee an opportunity of effectively challenging evidence on which his detention was based, may in certain circumstances be envisaged in proceedings concerning review of the lawfulness of detention during judicial proceedings (see Lamy v.   Belgium , judgment of 30   March 1989, Series   A no.   151, pp.   16- ‑ 17, §   29, and Chruściński v.   Poland , no.   22755/04, §   62, 6   November 2007). The Court also notes that the prosecutor’s refusal to allow the applicant access to the case file was justified by the fact that the case concerned a complex investigation of the criminal activity of several individuals and that the file included classified documents. However, it reiterates that the efficient conduct of an investigation, albeit a legitimate goal, cannot be pursued at the expense of substantial restrictions of the rights of the defence of the applicant who, along with his lawyers, was prevented from accessing his case file for more than two years, for fourteen months of which he remained in pre ‑ trial detention. 88.     The Court considers that it was essential for the applicant and his lawyers to have access to the file and to inspect the documents in it, subject, if need be, to special arrangements in respect of the classified documents, in order to challenge the lawfulness of the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention (see Migoń v.   Poland , no.   24244/94, §   86, 25   June 2002). In the light of the above, given the extensive period of time during which neither the applicant nor his lawyer had access to any of the documents in the case file, the Court considers that the applicant could not effectively exercise his defence rights in the proceedings concerning the review of the lawfulness of his pre ‑ trial detention. 89.     Accordingly, there has been a violation of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention as regards the lack of access to the case file. IV.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   8 OF THE CONVENTION 90.     The applicant complained that during his detention he had been deprived of personal contact with his family for a significant period of time. He complained that the prosecutor’s decisions had been arbitrary and that no appeal lay against them. The applicant relied on Article   8 of the Convention, which provides as relevant: “1.     Everyone has the right to respect for his ... family life... 2.     There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well ‑ being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.” 91.     The Government contested this argument, and maintained that the restriction of contact with the applicant’s wife had been necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. 92.     The Court notes that the complaint is not manifestly ill ‑ founded within the meaning of Article   35 §   3   (a) of the Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 93.     The Court further notes that it has not been contested that the applicant was not allowed to receive visits from his wife from October 2006 until his release in January 2008. The applicant’s mother visited the applicant on two occasions, in June 2005 and June 2007. From the documents at the disposal of the Court it also appears that the prosecutor’s decisions refusing those visits did not include any reasoning (see paragraphs   54   and   56 above). In particular, the few information letters sent by the Katowice Appellate Prosecutor to the applicant or his wife could not be considered as sufficiently remedying the total lack of reasoning in the authorities’ decisions refusing family visits between October 2006 and January 2008 (see paragraphs   53   and   55 above and compare and contrast Piechowicz, cited above, §   21). 94.     The restrictions on the applicant’s personal contact with his family constituted an “interference” with his right to respect for his family life. 95.     The Court observes that the contested measure was applied under Article   217 §   1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences. The Court further notes that this provision, as applicable at the material time, gave the relevant authority (prosecutor or court) the power to grant permission for family visits in prison. The law, however, provided no details as regards the conditions for granting such permission, no guidance as to how the authorities might decide whether a prohibition of visiting rights was merited in a particular case, and what factors might be relevant to that decision. Nor did it provide for the possibility of an appeal against refusal of visits. Those decisions were left to the authorities’ absolute discretion. 96.     The Court further observes that it has already held that Article   217   §   1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences did not indicate with reasonable clarity the scope and manner of the exercise of any discretion conferred on the relevant authorities to restrict visiting rights (see   Wegera v.   Poland , no.   141/07, §   74 ‑ 75, 19   January 2010, and Gradek v.   Poland , no.   39631/06, §   43, 8     June 2010). 97.     For these reasons the Court concludes that the unreasoned refusal of   family visits in detention in the applicant’s case was not in accordance with the law. On that account it is not necessary to ascertain whether the other conditions imposed by Article   8 §   2 have been complied with. There has accordingly been a violation of Article   8 of the Convention. V.     ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE   3 OF THE CONVENTION 98.     The applicant complained of a violation of Article   3 of the Convention, in that he remained in solitary confinement between 6   January 2006 and 31   January 2008. He submitted that the cell had been fitted with a narrow bed which was too short for him, that in winter the temperature in the cell fell below zero, and that he had not been allowed to use the library, attend mass or participate in other activities. The applicant also argued that he had been kept in isolation and had been prevented or restricted from receiving newspapers and books. 99.     The Government contested these arguments. They submitted that while detained in the Katowice Detention Centre between 6   January 2006 and 30   October 2007 the applicant had been placed in a single cell measuring 3.5   square metres. They maintained that he had been allowed daily outdoor walks with other inmates and had had access to the library, religious services and other activities provided by the detention centre. He also had his own radio and TV in the cell. In Sieradz Prison, where the applicant was detained between 30   October 2007 and 31   January 2008, he had been placed in a single cell of 5   square metres. The Government provided letters from both remand centres, which attest that the applicant had had daily walks and that he had not been interested in other activities provided by the prison. They also maintained that in both detention centres the applicant had been receiving parcels from his family and had subscribed to several magazines and newspapers. 100.     The Government submitted that the applicant had never complained to the prison authorities or to the District Inspectorates of the Prison Service about being placed in a single cell or about the conditions of his detention; nor had he lodged a civil action against the State Treasury. 101.     The applicant admitted that he had not complained to the Penitentiary Judge. From the evidence submitted by him it appears that he made one request in May 2006 to the Director of the Katowice Detention Centre asking additionally for leave to receive meals from outside on days when he was not taken to court. 102.     The Court notes that it is not disputed that for over two years the applicant was detained in a single cell. The parties disagreed as to the particular conditions of his detention; in particular, it is not clear what was the degree of isolation to which he had been subjected, and, in particular, whether he had regular contact with other inmates. 103.     The allegations made by the applicant to the Court about the conditions of his detention are indeed very serious ones. Nevertheless, the Court notes that there is no evidence that the applic