CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 21 janvier 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E839E41 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:30pt; text-align:center } .s58ABC179 { margin-top:30pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .sF5C1637F { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FOURTH SECTION Application no. 73369/10 Paweł SŁOJEWSKI against Poland lodged on 6 December 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS   The applicant, Mr Paweł Słojewski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Warszawa. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     First set of criminal proceedings against the applicant [IV   K   1287/06] In 2004 the applicant was arrested and charged with assault and robbery. He was subsequently released and placed under police supervision. On 10 May 2010 the Warsaw-Praga District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment and a fine. On 28 September 2010 the Warsaw-Praga Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant’s further cassation appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20 May 2011. 2.     Second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant On 19 September 2006 the applicant was charged with assault and robbery. In September 2006 he went to work in the United Kingdom. On 17 June 2009, on his return, he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended, in particular, on 30   June 2009, 7 September 2009, 13 November 2009, 15 March 2010 and 15 June 2010. The courts considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful. On 26 September 2009 the charges against the applicant were modified. On 16 August 2010 a bill of indictment against the applicant was filed with the Warsaw District Court. On 13 September 2010 and 14 December 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court again extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. These decisions were upheld on 4 November 2010 and 11 February 2011 respectively. On 11 March 2011 the Warsaw District Court lifted the pre-trial detention order, since the applicant had begun serving a prison sentence imposed in a different set of criminal proceedings against him. It appears that the proceedings are pending before the court of first ‑ instance. 3.     Family visits in pre-trial detention On an unknown date in 2009 the applicant applied to be allowed a visit from his fiancée, K.W. The Warsaw District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy ) refused his request. On 26 August 2009 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision. On 10 September 2009 it was dismissed as inadmissible in law. On 16 August 2010 the prosecutor again refused the applicant to have a prison visit from K.W. The prosecutor referred to the fact that K.W. was a witness in the proceedings against the applicant. The applicant appealed submitting that K.W. was the only person close to him ( osoba bliska ), given that his parents were dead. In addition, he submitted that she had testified as regards the items that were confiscated in his and his fiancée’s house and her testimonies had no relevance for the case against him. On 26 September 2010 the applicant again asked to be allowed to be visited by K.W. On 25 October 2010 he complained that he had not yet received a reply to his request. On 4 November 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court informed him that his request would be examined when the Warsaw Court of Appeal returned the case files to the Regional Court. On 15 November 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court refused the applicant a visit from K.W. The court held that she was a witness in the proceedings. On 17 December 2010 the applicant again asked to be allowed a visit from K.W. On 11 February 2011 he complained that he had not yet received a reply to his request. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice relating to visits in prison as applicable at the material time are set out in the Court’s judgment given in the case of Piechowicz v. Poland , (no. 20071/07, §§ 118,119, 17 April 2012). COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 6 about the unfairness of the first set of criminal proceedings against him. 2.     He further complains under Article 8 that for more than 19 months (between June 2009 and March 2011) he was not allowed to receive prison visits from his fiancée. 3.     Lastly, he submits numerous complaints about various irregularities in prison. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES   Did the restrictions placed on the applicant’s personal contact with his fiancée violate his rights, guaranteed by Article   8 of the Convention?