CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 4 octobre 2016

.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 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .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 } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s79DE5897 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA20670C4 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s59DEA84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:59.5pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sB206C230 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:68.65pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-16.75pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s2CE7C1B9 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; font-style:italic } .sEBCF1C93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:24pt; font-size:8.5pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s39A0D789 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-21.8pt } .sBA5EBEC8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:2.6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s76CC6FD2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s583D00FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt } .s26FF04E7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:17.3pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFDE2A5 { width:204.44pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sC36A6361 { font-family:Arial; color:#000000 }       FOURTH SECTION             CASE OF KLIBISZ v. POLAND   (Application no. 2235/02)                 JUDGMENT   This version was rectified on 24 October 2016 under Rule 81 of the Rules of Court.     STRASBOURG   4 October 2016     FINAL   04/01/2017   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision.   In the case of Klibisz v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a   Chamber composed of:   András Sajó, President,   Vincent A. De Gaetano,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Iulia Motoc,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 6 September 2016, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application (no. 2235/02) 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 Andrzej Klibisz (“the   applicant”), on 14 December 2000. 2.     The applicant was represented before the Court by Ms A. Sadowska, a   lawyer practising in Poznań and Mr K. Karkoszka, a lawyer practising in Łódź. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, succeeded by Ms J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicant mainly complained under Articles 3, 5 § 3, 6 § 1, 8 and 10 of the Convention in relation to various aspects of his criminal trial and his detention pending trial and after conviction. 4.     On 24 May 2011 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). THE FACTS I.     THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 5.     The applicant, Mr Andrzej Klibisz, is a Polish national who was born in 1968 and is currently detained in Włocławek Prison. A.     The applicant’s arrest, his subsequent detention and criminal proceedings against him 6.     On 31 August 1995 the Chief Prosecutor of Lithuania requested the Polish prosecution authorities to carry out a criminal investigation against the applicant, who had been charged in Lithuania with certain offences he had allegedly committed there. On the basis of the bilateral 1993   Cooperation Agreement, the Polish authorities took over the case. 7.     On 7 March 1996 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator   Okręgowy) issued a decision to remand the applicant in custody for a period of seven days. The applicant was suspected of the murder of a   certain T.K., the attempted murder of a certain W.S. in Vilnius in 1994 and illegal possession of weapons. 8.     On 8 March 1996 at 1 p.m. the applicant appeared voluntarily at the Warsaw Police Headquarters (Komenda Policji) in connection with a matter unrelated to the proceedings which are the subject of the instant application. He was immediately arrested. He was not served with the prosecutor’s decision ordering his detention. 9.     On 14 March 1996 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor issued another decision to retain the applicant in custody. He gave as reasons for his decision the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, and the gravity of the charges. 10.     On 1   April   1996 that decision was upheld by the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) . Neither the applicant nor his lawyer were allowed to attend the hearing. They were not, therefore, able to present their arguments to the court. In addition, neither the applicant nor his lawyer had access to the case file in order to prepare their appeal against the decisions ordering the applicant’s detention. 11.     On 15 March 1996 the applicant’s lawyer lodged an interlocutory appeal, challenging the fact that his client had been detained by a   prosecutor’s decision. It appears that the appeal was not entertained by the authorities. 12.     On 21 March 1996 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor rejected the applicant’s lawyer’s application to have the preventive measure in question lifted. 13.     On 3   June 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 September 1996. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer were authorised to attend the hearing and to present their arguments orally. They did not have access to the case file. 14.     That decision was upheld by the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( Sąd   Apelacyjny) on 4   July 1996. Only the prosecutor attended the appellate hearing. The applicant and his lawyer were not allowed to attend the hearing and were not granted access to the case file. 15.     Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was extended by numerous consecutive court decisions. The decision of the Warsaw Court of Appeal of 19   September   1996 (upheld by the Supreme Court ( Sąd Najwyższy) on 22   November 1996) and the decision of the Warsaw Court of Appeal of 6   December 1996 (upheld by the Supreme Court on 13 January 1997) were all justified by the courts by the existence of strong evidence against the applicant, comprising the testimony of the alleged victim W.S., the results of the line-up and confrontation with witnesses, as well as by the gravity of charges and a need to take additional investigatory measures. 16.     The Supreme Court’s hearing of 22 November 1996 and the Warsaw Court of Appeal’s hearing of 6 December 1996 were held in the presence of the prosecutor, with neither the applicant nor his lawyer entitled to attend or to have access to the case file. 17.     Meanwhile, the Warsaw Regional Court on 16 May and 12 August 1996, the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 8 October 1996 and the Supreme Court on 4   December   1996 refused to lift the preventive measure in question as requested by the applicant and his lawyer. 18.     The court’s hearing of 16 May 1996 was held with the prosecutor present, whereas the applicant and his lawyer were not allowed to participate. In addition only the prosecutor had access to the case file. 19.     On 7 February 1997 the Warsaw Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 8 March 1997, giving as reasons for the decision, inter alia , the fact that the suspect and his lawyer were in the process of consulting the case file. 20.     On 4 March 1997 the applicant was indicted on charges of the murder of T.K., the attempted murder of W.S. and illegal possession of weapons. 21.     Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was not formally extended. Nevertheless he remained in custody beyond 8 March 1997. 22.     On 6 May 1997 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal lodged against the decision of 7 February 1997. The Supreme Court observed, however, that the lodging of an indictment did not transform the interim detention into a measure sine die . Consequently, if a   defendant was to remain in detention, a domestic court had to issue a   decision to extend the interim measure in question each time it was about to expire. 23.     The applicant’s lawyer followed with an application for the release of his client pending the proceedings. On 19 May 1997 the Warsaw Regional Court refused to lift the measure and conversely, extended it until 14   March 1998. On 20 June 1997 the Warsaw Court of Appeal decided to uphold the decision to extend the detention, but only until 8 March 1998. 24.     The applicant’s subsequent applications for release were rejected by the Warsaw Regional Court on 27   June 1997 and 26 March 1998. Neither the applicant nor his lawyer had the opportunity to attend the latter hearing or have access to the case file. The prosecutor was present. 25.     The applicant’s detention was further extended by the Supreme Court on 21   April   1998, until 31 August 1998, and on 15 October 1998, until 30   November 1998, on the grounds of the existence of strong evidence against him, the gravity of the charges, the complexity of the case and the need to obtain statements from witnesses who lived in Lithuania. 26.     Meanwhile, the first hearing in the applicant’s case took place on 11   February 1998. 27.     On 23 October 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to life imprisonment and to ten   years’ deprivation of civic rights. 28.     On the same day, the Regional Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention until the moment he started serving his imprisonment sentence. On 2 June 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court rejected an application for release lodged by the applicant’s lawyer. 29.     On 25 January 2000 the Warsaw Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of 23 October 1998 and ordered that the applicant’s detention be continued. On 1   February 2000 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal. On 7   April 2000 the detention decision was upheld by the Warsaw Court of Appeal. 30.     On 19 July 2000 the Warsaw Regional Court refused to release the applicant on bail as sought by his lawyer. On 30   August and 18   December   2000, and 7 February 2001 the Warsaw Regional Court issued decisions to continue the applicant’s detention. They were upheld by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 10   October   2000, 16 January and 3   April   2001 respectively. 31.     On 7 February 2001 the Warsaw Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment and to ten years’ deprivation of civic rights (no. VIII K 168/00). 32.     Subsequently the applicant’s detention was extended by the Warsaw Regional Court’s decisions of 26 April 2001 (upheld by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 5 June 2001) and of 16 July 2001 (upheld on 31 August 2001), and by the decision of the Warsaw Court of Appeal of 19   October 2001 (upheld by the same court on 16 November 2001). 33.     On 18 December 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of 7 February 2001 (II AKa 467/01). 34.     On 22 October 2002 the Supreme Court quashed the second-instance judgment of 18 December 2001 and decided to continue the applicant’s detention. 35.     On 29 November 2002 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant’s request to have a legal-aid lawyer appointed for the purpose of “requesting the revocation of the court decisions to extend his detention”. 36.     On 7   January 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal decided not to lift the measure in question as sought by the applicant, and on 17 January 2003, extended his detention. The latter decision was upheld by the same court on 18   February 2003. 37.     On 18 February 2003 and 11 April 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal decided again not to lift the measure and furthermore, in a separate decision of 11 April 2003, extended the detention until 22   July   2003. The   latter decision was upheld by the same court on 13   May   2003. On   17   June 2003 and on 5 September 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal refused to lift the preventive measure. On 11 July 2003 the same court decided to extend the applicant’s detention further. On 18   July and 14   August 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal decided again neither to lift the applicant’s detention nor to order a substitute preventive measure. 38.     On 20 October 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld in principle the judgment of 7 February 2001, altering, because of amendments to the Criminal Code, only the legal classification of certain offences accompanying the main charges of murder and attempted murder (no.   II   Aka 487/02). 39.     On 12 May 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal and his conviction became final. 40.     Throughout the criminal proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer of his own choice. The applicant was present at the hearings and accompanied by his counsel. At the final stage of the proceedings the applicant was represented by a lawyer appointed by the court for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal of 20   October   2003. B.     Proceedings for compensation for unlawful detention 41.     The applicant brought an action for compensation alleging that his detention between 10 March 1996 and 8 March 1997, between 8   March   1997 and 18 December 2001, and between 22 October 2002 and 20   October 2003 had been unlawful. With regard to the first-mentioned period, the applicant argued that detaining him on the basis of a prosecutor’s decision, and not a court’s, was in breach of Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Regarding the second-mentioned period, the applicant argued that after his indictment he had continued to be detained beyond the term prescribed in the relevant court’s decision. Finally, in connection with the third-mentioned period, the applicant complained that having quashed his second-instance conviction, the Supreme Court had decided to extend his detention despite the fact that the applicant had been absent from the relevant hearing, thus, in breach of the principle of equality of arms. 42.     On an unspecified date the applicant challenged the impartiality of numerous judges who had decided on the extension of his detention pending the outcome of the criminal proceedings. He requested that those judges be excluded from the examination of his case for compensation for unlawful detention. 43.     On 14 January 2003 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s motion. In connection with the challenge of the impartiality of Judge B.S. and Judge G.S, the court held that the applicant had failed to show that there was a reasonable doubt as to the impartiality of those judges. The court stated that the applicant had merely expressed his personal conviction that the judges in question had given unjustified decisions to keep him in custody. The court concluded that the fact that a judge had given a decision contrary to the wishes of a party was not an indication of any personal prejudice of that judge against that party. 44.     On 12 October 2005 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim for compensation. With regard to the first period of detention, the court considered it to be in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1969, which at the relevant time provided that pre-trial detention was to be ordered by the prosecutor, whose decision could be challenged in court. Regarding the second period in question, the court acknowledged that the practice of considering pre-trial detention as a measure sine die upon the indictment of a detainee had been changed by the 1996 Supreme Court’s Resolution. However, the decision to extend the applicant’s detention on 19 May 1997 was considered justified since the court had applied the literal meaning of the relevant procedural provisions. Finally, as to the third period complained of, the court found that there were no shortcomings in the impugned proceedings before the Supreme Court and that the decision to maintain the applicant’s detention upon the quashing of his conviction had been fully justified. 45.     That judgment was upheld by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 1   March   2006. A cassation appeal was not available. C.     Proceedings under the 2004 Act for compensation for unreasonable length of proceedings concerning the extension of the applicant’s detention 46.     On 13 December 2004 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court two complaints under the 2004 Act. He claimed compensation for the alleged delays in the Supreme Court’s examination of his interlocutory appeals against the decisions of the Warsaw Appeal Court of 19 September 1996 and 7 February 1997 extending his pre-trial detention. 47.     On 14 January 2005 the Supreme Court gave two decisions, dismissing both of the applicant’s complaints. 48.     In both decisions the court considered that the proceedings in question had not been unreasonably lengthy, bearing in mind the fact that judges of the Supreme Court had had to examine voluminous material in what was a complex case. 49.     On 17 December 2004 the applicant lodged with the Supreme Court two complaints under the 2004 Act. He claimed compensation for the alleged delays in the Supreme Court’s examination of the Warsaw Regional Court’s appeals to extend his detention of 4 March 1998 (Supreme Court’s decision of 21 Aril 1998) and of 25 August 1998 (Supreme Court’s decision of 15 October 1998). 50.     On 14 January 2005 the Supreme Court gave two decisions, dismissing both of the applicant’s complaints on the ground that no delays had occurred in the proceedings in question. 51.     On 27 April 2005 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the applicant’s appeals against those decisions. D.     Proceedings for compensation for unreasonable length of the main criminal proceedings against the applicant 52.     The applicant lodged thirty complaints under the 2004 Act about a   breach of his right to a trial within a reasonable time at various stages of the criminal proceedings against him. 53.     On 16 June 2005 the Supreme Court (no. SPK 12/05) refused to entertain the complaints related to the proceedings before the Warsaw Court of Appeal no. II AKa 467/01 and no. II AKa 487/02. The Supreme Court held that the applicant had not complied with the procedural requirements of the relevant domestic law because his application with the ECHR had not been lodged during the impugned appellate proceedings but during the preceding first-instance trial no. VIII K 168/00. 54.     On 16 June 2005 the Supreme Court (no. KSP 5/05) refused to entertain the complaint lodged in relation to the pending proceedings concerning the breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (no.   II   S 3/05), on the ground that such a complaint was not available under the applicable domestic law. 55.     On 16 June 2005 the Supreme Court (no. WZ 38/05) upheld the Supreme Court’s order of 27 April 2005. E.     Criminal proceedings against the applicant for uttering threats 56.     On 16 August 2000 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor opened an inquiry into the allegations that during his detention in Barczewo Prison the applicant had uttered threats and incited third persons to kill Judge B.P., who had presided in the applicant’s criminal case. 57.     On 28 December 2001 the applicant was charged with the above ‑ mentioned offence. 58.     On 30 November 2004 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor closed the investigation on the ground that the applicant had not committed the offence in question. F.     Civil proceedings for compensation instituted by the applicant 59.     The applicant brought numerous civil actions for infringement of his personal rights in connection with various events. 60.     On 3 February 2005 the applicant filed a civil action under Article   417 of the Civil Code seeking compensation for a breach of Article 6 and other provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights, which had allegedly been committed by domestic courts and penitentiary facilities in relation to the applicant’s main criminal case (VIII K 168/00). On 8 May 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim, considering that the plaintiff had failed to substantiate some of his allegations and to demonstrate that the remainder of the alleged procedural shortcomings and the actions of the respondent had been unlawful or linked with any damage which the applicant might have suffered. On 2 July 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On an unspecified date the applicant’s lawyer informed him that a   cassation appeal against that judgment was without any prospects of success. 61.     On 13 October 2005 the applicant brought a civil action under Article 417 of the Civil Code, seeking compensation for the fact that in the official letter of 27   December 2004 the Deputy Governor (Zastępca   Dyrektora) of Radom Remand Centre had stated that the applicant was guilty of uttering threats against Judge B. P. On 8 June 2006 the Radom Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action. It was established that the official letter in question contained information that proceedings for uttering threats were pending against the applicant and did not, as the applicant had alleged, imply that he was guilty of uttering threats. In fact, the impugned criminal proceedings against the applicant had been terminated on 21 December 2004 but the remand centre’s administration had been informed about it only on 28 December 2004, that is, one day after the deputy governor’s letter was sent. On 16 November 2006 the Lublin Court of Appeal upheld that decision. 62.     On 19 November 2006 the applicant brought a civil action for compensation for infringement of his personal rights in that a judge of the Penitentiary Commission of Radom Remand Centre had found him guilty of uttering threats against Judge B. P. On 21 November 2006 the Radom Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim as manifestly ill-founded. On 6   June   2007 the Lublin   Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. The applicant did not lodge a   cassation appeal in the case. 63.     On 5 November 2006 the applicant brought a civil action for compensation for breach of his personal rights in that the Governor (Dyrektor) of Radom Remand Centre had reported to the Penitentiary Commission that the applicant had been uttering threats against Judge B. P. On 30   March   2007 the Radom Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 4 July 2007 the Lublin Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 23   October 2007 the Lublin Court of Appeal granted legal aid for the purpose of lodging a cassation appeal in the case. By letter of 26   November   2007 the applicant’s lawyer informed the applicant that there were no grounds for such an appeal and that consequently that he would not lodge one on the applicant’s behalf. 64.     It appears that 18 April 2006 the applicant brought another civil action for compensation in relation to an unspecified event. On 30 November 2006 the Radom Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. On 26 June 2007 the Lublin Court of Appeal upheld that judgment. On 13   August 2007 it rejected the applicant’s request for legal aid. 65.     On an unspecified date in 2009 the applicant brought a civil action for libel against a certain M.G., the applicant’s former fellow cellmate, who had allegedly informed the prosecution services that the applicant had been uttering death threats against Judge B.P. On 22 July 2010 the Włocławek Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s action, holding that he had failed to prove that the respondent had acted unlawfully. G.     Monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence 1.     Letters from domestic authorities 66.     The applicant submitted photocopies of three envelopes which contained letters sent to him at his address in Warszawa-Białołęka Remand Centre by the Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service, the Country Election Office ( Krajowe Biuro Wyborcze ) and the Central Board of the Prison Service ( Centralny Zarząd Służby Więziennej ) respectively. 67.     The first envelope bears two rectangular stamps reading “Warszawa   Białołęka Remand Centre Received ... L.dz [an abbreviation]....” (“ Areszt Śledczy Warszawa Białołęka Wpłynęło ... L.dz. ...”) . The date of 13   December 2002 is printed in the middle of one of the stamps and the date of 24 December 2002 on the other. The envelope also bears a stamp reading “Letter censored date ...” (“ List ocenzurowano dnia ... ”). The date of 18   December 2002 has been written by hand on the dotted line and an illegible signature is visible next to it. 68.     The second envelope bears similar rectangular stamps reading “Warszawa Białołęka Remand Centre Received ... L.dz ....” (“ Areszt Śledczy Warszawa Białołęka Wpłynęło ... L.dz. ...”) . The date of 11 December 2002 is printed in the middle of one of these stamps and the date of 19 December 2002 on the other. “Letter censored date ...” (“ List ocenzurowano dnia ... ”) has been stamped over one of the rectangular stamps. The date of 17   December 2002 has been handwritten on the dotted line and an illegible signature is visible next to it. 69.     The third envelope bears two rectangular stamps reading “Warszawa   Białołęka Remand Centre Received ... L.dz ....” (“ Areszt Śledczy Warszawa Białołęka Wpłynęło ... L.dz. ...”) . The date of 11 December 2002 is printed in the middle of one of these stamps and the date of 19 December 2002 on the other. The envelope also bears a stamp reading “Letter censored date ...” (“ List ocenzurowano dnia ... ”). The date of 17 December 2002 has been handwritten on the dotted line and an illegible signature is visible next to it. 70.     The applicant complained about the interference with his correspondence to the penitentiary authorities. 71.     He also brought a related civil action for the infringement of personal rights, seeking 100,000 Polish zlotys (PLN - approximately 24,500   euros (EUR)) of compensation. 72.     On 27 November 2006 the Warsaw Regional Court awarded the applicant PLN 5,000 in compensation for the infringement of his personal rights on account of the fact that three letters sent to him from the Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service, the Country Election Office and the Central Board of the Prison Service had been censored by mistake. 73.     By virtue of the same judgment the applicant, who at the beginning of the proceedings had been exempted from court fees, was ordered to pay PLN   5,000 towards a part of an unpaid court fee. 74.     The applicant and the respondent appealed. 75.     On 28 June 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the first ‑ instance judgment on the merits and quashed the part concerning the court’s fees. 2.     Letter from the ECHR 76.     The applicant also submitted a photocopy of an envelope containing the letter which had been sent to him on 12 December 2002 by the Registry of the Court. 77.     The envelope bears two rectangular stamps reading “Warszawa Białołęka Remand Centre Received ... L.dz ....” (“ Areszt Śledczy Warszawa Białołęka Wpłynęło ... L.dz. ...”) . The date of 16 December 2002 is printed in the middle of one of these stamps and the date of 24 December 2002 on the other. The envelope also bears a stamp reading “Letter censored date ...” (“ List ocenzurowano dnia ... ”). The date of 18 December 2002 has been handwritten on the dotted line and an illegible signature is visible next to it. 78.     It appears that the applicant complained about the interference with his correspondence to the penitentiary authorities. 79.     He also brought a related civil action for the infringement of personal rights, seeking PLN 100,000 of compensation. 80.   On 9 August 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court awarded the applicant PLN 1,000 of compensation for unlawful interference with the applicant’s correspondence and waived the court fees. 81.     The applicant did not appeal. H.     Conditions of the applicant’s detention 82.     The applicant has been in continuous detention since 8   March 1996. 83.     He complained that throughout his entire detention he had been held in overcrowded cells with the right to only one hour of an outdoor exercise per day and to one shower per week. More recently, the applicant submitted that despite the fact that the domestic authorities claimed to have resolved the issue of overcrowding in detention facilities, the conditions of his own detention had not improved. 84.     The applicant maintained that the authorities of different detention facilities had persecuted him for helping his fellow inmates write legal motions and complaints and for spreading information about the case ‑ law of the ECHR. The alleged persecution took the forms of: placing the applicant under a special regime for dangerous prisoners, transferring him frequently between different detention facilities, sending him to prisons located far from his family’s home and confiscating his personal belongings. 1.     Warszawa Mokotów Remand Centre 85.     The applicant was detained in this detention facility (in   his   hometown) during the following periods: (1) from 8   March 1996 until 26   March 1997, (2) from 14 January until 19   November 1998, (3) from 12   January 2000 until 20   February 2001, (4) from 3   December 2001 until 18   March 2002, (5) from 11 February until 25 June 2003, (6) from 23   July until 16 December 2003; (7) from 13 May until 1 June 2004; and (8) from 4   until 14 February 2008. (a)     Description of the living conditions 86.     As established by the Warsaw Regional Court in the course of the civil proceedings described below, during the six terms of his detention in Warszawa Mokotów Remand Centre, the conditions of the applicant’s detention were the following. 87.     The applicant had been detained in cells, in which the space per person had at all times been inferior to 3 square metres. From 1   January until 31   December   2000 the maximum capacity of the remand centre had been exceeded by almost 5%. 88.     As a non-smoker the applicant had been assigned to non-smoking cells. The internal rules, however, had not been respected by his fellow ‑ prisoners and the applicant had been exposed to cigarette smoke. The   toilet annex in the applicant’s cells had been separated from the rest of the cell either by a piece of plywood with the entrance covered with a piece of fabric or by a concrete wall with a sliding door. In most cases the applicant’s cells had not been ventilated. 89.     In addition, the applicant submitted that during his detention in Warszawa Mokotów Remand Centre he had not received a non-meat diet ( dieta jarska ), which had been contrary to a doctor’s recommendations and which had allegedly resulted in malnutrition and, consequently, a   deterioration in his health. 90.     During his detention under high-security regime, from 13 May until 1   June 2004, the applicant was committed to a single-occupancy cell and was in complete isolation from other prisoners. Every day he had a one-hour period of an outdoor exercise alone. Every few days he had access to the remand centre’s day-room in which he was also alone. He did not have access to any sporting, education or leisure activities. The applicant was subjected to personal checks when he was admitted to and transferred from the remand centre and, on a daily basis, each time he left and returned to his cell. The applicant’s cell with the exception of the toilet area, the outdoor yard, day-room and all other places open to the applicant, were under constant camera surveillance. (b)     Related civil action and complaints 91.     On 7 March 2006 the applicant brought a civil action in tort against Warszawa Mokotów Remand Centre. He invoked Article 417 of the Civil Code and Article 3 of the Convention. He claimed PLN 500,000 in compensation for his alleged suffering, during his entire stay in that remand centre, resulting from overcrowding and poor living and sanitary conditions and from exposure to cigarette smoke. 92.     On 7 November 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The domestic court examined the case under Article 23 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 448 of that code. The court held that the suffering which the applicant had experienced because of the overcrowding had not been great enough to warrant an award of compensation. It was stressed that despite the overcrowding, the overall sanitary and living conditions in the remand centre had been acceptable. The   domestic court did not rule on the issue of the applicant’s passive smoking. 93.     On 19 December 2008 the applicant appealed against that judgment. 94.     It appears that on an unspecified date the appeal was dismissed by the second-instance court. 95.     It appears that the applicant also complained to the penitentiary authorities about the conditions of his detention under high-security regime. 2.     Białystok Remand Centre 96.     In this facility (200 km from his hometown) the applicant was detained during the following periods: (1) from 26 March 1997 until 14   January 1998; and (2) from 11 September until 9 October 2002. He did not make any specific submissions in respect of the conditions of his detention there. 3.     Barczewo Prison 97.     In this establishment (230 km from his hometown) the applicant was detained from 19 November 1998 until 12 January 2000. He submitted that he had been detained in an unheated cell (no. 11 wing XIV) in temperatures as low as 14 degrees Celsius with an average temperature of 16-17 degrees Celsius in wintertime. 4.     Bydgoszcz Fordon Prison 98.     In this facility (270 km from his hometown) the applicant was detained (1) from 20 February until 3   December 2001; and (2) from 17   January until 7 February 2006. 99.     He did not make any specific submissions in respect of the conditions of his detention there. 5.     Warszawa Białołęka Prison and Remand Centre 100.     The applicant was detained in this prison (in his hometown) during the following periods: (1) from 18 March until 24 April 2002; (2) from 22   May until 11 September 2002; (3) from 9 October 2002 until 11   February 2003; (4) from 30 September until 18 November 2005; (5)   from 7 until 15 February 2006; (6) from 30 August 2007 until 4   February 2008; (7) from 14 February until 8 April 2008; (8) from 24 April until 7 May 2008; (9) from 1 until 23 October 2008; and (10) from an unspecified date after 13 February 2012 until an unspecified date before 5   March 2012. (a)     Description of the living conditions 101.     In his application form of 15 November 2010 the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in Warszawa Białołęka Prison. He submitted that he had been detained together with another inmate in a single-occupancy cell measuring 5 square metres and then, together with five other inmates, in a cell measuring 13 square metres. The cells in question were run down, dirty, not ventilated and badly-lit. There was mould on the walls and water dripped from the ceiling whenever someone was using the tap in the cell upstairs. The applicant had one hour of outdoor exercise per day. Prisoners did not have the opportunity to participate in any activities. The prison’s computer room, which had been funded by the European Union, was permanently locked. The applicant had a shower once a week but could barely wash himself because the shower heads were designed to limit water consumption. The applicant’s meals were always served cold one hour and a half after the distribution round had started. 102.     The applicant also submitted that he had been beaten up by a   warden in Warszawa Białołęka Prison. (b)     Related civil action 103.     On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil action in tort against Warszawa Białołęka Prison. He was represented by a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 104.     On 12 February 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the action. 105.     On 26 May 2010 the applicant was informed by his lawyer that the latter had failed to appear at the court’s final hearing and had not been aware of the ruling. In consequence the lawyer had failed to request a   reasoned judgment from the first-instance court and to lodge an appeal. The lawyer offered to pay the applicant PLN 2,000 in compensation for his own negligence (“ nienależyte wykonanie obowiązku” ) and instructed the applicant about the possibility of bringing a civil action if he considered that amount insufficient. 106.     The first-instance judgment became final on 30 August 2010. (c)     Penitentiary complaints 107.     In 2002 the applicant filed several complaints with different penitentiary authorities about the lack of a vegetarian diet, frequent power cuts and other issues relating to the living conditions in Warszawa Białołęka Remand Centre. None were successful. 108.     On 11 July 2002 the Director of the Warsaw Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service informed the applicant that detention facilities were not under any duty to cater to the dietary preferences of detainees if, as in the applicant’s case, they were not medically justified. 109.     On 7 January 2003 the applicant complained to a competent penitentiary judge, inter alia , that he had been punched by a warden in the course of an argument they had had in the morning of the same day. On   28   February   2003 the judge, who had examined witnesses’ statements and the report from the applicant’s medical examination immediately after the incident, found the applicant’s allegations to be unfounded. 6.     Potulice Prison 110.     The applicant was detained in that facility (287 km from his hometown) from 24 April until 22   May   2002. He alleged that he had not received proper medical care there. 7.     Łódź Prison No. 2 111.     The applicant was detained in this facility (140 km from his hometown) from 25 June until 23 July 2003. (a)     Description of the living conditions 112.     In his application form, which was received by the Registry on 30   November 2010, the applicant complained about the conditions of his detention in Łódź Prison, to which he had been committed for psychiatric observation. He alleged that his cell had been overcrowded. The toilet had been separated by a brick wall, which was only one-metre high. Because the windows had been blocked by heavy blinds, the cell had not been ventilated and the temperature inside had reached up to 40 degrees Celsius. (b)     Alleged medical malpractice 113.     The applicant had had one hour of outdoor exercise per day. He also submitted that, on 4 July 2003, during an EMG head examination which had been carried out in the prison, his arm had been badly damaged and he had not been prescribed any physiotherapy for that. (c)     Related civil proceedings concerning medical malpractice and detention conditions 114.     On 6 September 2006 the applicant brought a civil action for compensation for the health damage which he had allegedly suffered as a   result of the negligence of the medical staff of Łódź Prison on 4 July 2003 and of inadequate care, namely the lack of physiotherapy, afterwards. On 14   April 2008 the applicant broadened the scope of his claim by alleging a   breach of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights in that the prison authorities had failed to ensure that the conditions of his detention in Łódź Prison were adequate. 115.     On 22 January 2010 the Łódź Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s civil action. 116.     The claim concerning the alleged medical malpractice was examined by the court under Article 417 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article   445 of that code, whereas the claim concerning the allegedly inadequate conditions of detention was examined under Article 24 of the Civil Code in conjunction with Article 448 of that code. 117.     As regards the claim under Article 417 of the Civil Code the domestic court analysed in detail the course of the medical procedure in question and a number of medical experts’ reports. It was concluded that the medical staff who had performed the applicant’s EMG scan on 4 July 2003 had not made any errors. The damage to the nerve of the applicant’s arm had occurred much later and it was impossible to determine its cause. The court considered, however, that there was certainly no causal link between the events of 4 July 2003 and the damage suffered by the applicant. 118.     As regards the claim under Article 24 of the Civil Code, the respondent party raised an objection, arguing that pursuant to Article 442 1 of the Civil Code the statutory three-year limitation period for claims in tort had elapsed, at the latest, three years after the applicant had left Łódź Prison, that is, on 23 July 2006. 119.     The domestic court did not address the respondent’s objection and examined the case on the merits. 120.     The following facts were established by the court on the basis of the data from various prison and hospital registers, and prison inspection reports. In the relevant period the applicant had been detained in cells nos.   303 and 305. The space per person in those cells had at all times been greater than the statutory minimum standard of 3 square metres. The cells had been well-lit and well-ventilated even though the windows had indeed been partly covered by semi-transparent blinds attached to the outside wall at an angle, creating a twenty-six centimetre gap between the window and the blind. A toilet annex in each cell had been sufficiently separated and clean. 121.     In the light of the above facts the court held that the applicant’s personal rights had not been infringed. 122.     On 20 May 2010 the Łódź Court of Appeal upheld the first ‑ instance judgment. 8.     Włocławek Prison 123.     The applicant was detained in this prison (160 km from his hometown) (1) from 16 December 2003 until 12 January 2004. He did not make any specific submissions in respect of the conditions of his detention in that period. The applicant was again committed to that detention facility (2) from an unspecified date, no later than 11 August 2011 until an unspecified date before 20 February 2012 and (3) from an unspecified date before 2 July 2012 until the present day. 124.     The applicant submitted that on 11 August 2011 he was committed to cell no. 118 in wing S. On 12 August 2011 he was moved to cell no.   213 in wing E and on 19 August 2011, to another cell in wing B. On 22 August 2011 he was committed to cell no. 214 in wing D and later, to cell no.   210 in wing D. On 28 December 2011 he was transferred to cell no. 202 in wing   D and on 16 January 2012 to cell no. 210 in the same wing. 125.     The above mentioned cells of wing D, which was reserved to prisoners attending school, were, for the most part, shared by five inmates (including the applicant). The statutory minimum standard of 3 square metres had not been secured in those cells. They were insufficiently lit and the toilet annex was small. The applicant had access to shower once a week for 10 minutes at a time. No additional shower was allowed to the applicant on the days when he worked in the school workshop. 126.     From September 2011 until September 2012 (presumably with a   break when he was detained in Warszawa Służewiec Remand Centre – see paragraph 250 below) the applicant attended vocational high school three days per week. From September until late-October 2012 he was enrolled in an additional technical course from Monday through Friday. 127.     From May through September prisoners could use the prison’s football pitch once a week for 45 minutes. Throughout the year they had an hour-long outdoor exercise per day in a small concrete yard. 128.     The applicant submitted that he and his cellmates often quarrelled and got in fights because of tension caused by their constant rotation between cells. 129.     On 23 October 2012 the applicant was transferred to a single cell no. 114 in wing F. 130.     On 21 November 2012 the Penitentiary Commission of Włocławek Remand Centre decided to revoke the applicant’s authorisation to study in view of the applicant’s moderate progress in resocialisation and unfavourable criminological prognosis which he had received on 20   November 2012. On 11 December 2012 this decision was partly changed on appeal and the applicant was allowed to resume his education. 131.     On 18 December 2012 the Penitentiary Commission of Włocławek Remand Centre decided to continue the applicant’s detention in a   closed ‑ type prison in view of the seriousness of the offence of which he had been convicted, his increasingly vexatious behaviour, disobedience and unfavourable criminological prognosis. 132.     The applicant is currently attending the remand centre’s school. 9.     Radom Remand Centre 133.     The applicant was detained in this facility (100 km from his hometown) (1) from 12   January until 13   May 2004; (2) from