CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 août 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }     Communicated on 24 August 2015   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 68924/12 Adam SŁOMKA against Poland lodged on 20 September 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Adam Słomka, is a Polish national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Katowice. He is represented before the Court by Mr   Z.   Cichoń, a lawyer practising in Cracow. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is a former activist of an anti-communist opposition, interned in 1982. The applicant had been observing the criminal trial against the members of the Military Council of National Salvation who ordered the imposition of the state of emergency in Poland in December 1981. He was in the courtroom when on 12   January 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court was to deliver its judgment. The applicant jumped behind the judge’s table and shouted: “This is a mockery of justice!” (“ Tutaj trwa kpina z wymiaru sprawiedliwości” ). Some other members of the audience shouted “Disgrace!” and “Court before the court!” (“ Hańba ” and “ Sąd pod sąd ”). They were all holding up the photos of the victims of the communist regime. The applicant was removed from the courtroom. The trial continued and, in the applicant’s absence, the Warsaw Regional Court imposed on him 14 days of disciplinary custodial penalty for contempt of court (“for the breach of the court’s dignity, peace and order, making the announcement of the judgment impossible”), which is the most severe disciplinary penalty available under the applicable law. The applicant submitted that he had not been served with that decision or informed of it. On 19 January 2012 the applicant was arrested in view to serving the penalty and committed to Warsaw Remand Centre with a close regime. It appears that on the 14th day the Penitentiary Commission of the Warsaw Remand Centre decided that the applicant be detained under a semi-open regime (with a possibility to leave his cell during the day). Following that decision, the applicant was transferred for several hours to the remand centre with a semi-open regime. On 22 January 2012 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the decision imposing the custodial penalty under Section 50 of the Act of 27   July 2001 on the legal structure of the courts ( Prawo o ustroju sądów powszechnych ). He argued that his one-minute statement had not disturbed the court to such an extent as to make it impossible to announce the judgment. He also submitted that if the presiding judge had told him to return to his seat he would have complied. It is unclear whether the applicant also raised the argument about the lack of impartiality of the judges punishing him for contempt of court. This appeal was registered with the domestic court on 30 January 2012. The applicant was released on 2 February 2012. On 22 March 2012 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal, finding that the applicant’s behaviour had interfered with the solemn nature of court proceedings and with the court’s dignity. His action was premeditated as he knew that the announcement of the judgment had a live media broadcast. His behaviour cannot also be explained by an emotional disagreement with the court’s ruling because at the time of the incident the applicant was unaware of the outcome of the trial. The applicant wished to disturb the order of the proceedings irrespective of their result. In the domestic court’s view, imposing a more lenient penalty would have sanctioned unaccountability and would have lacked a deterrent effect. COMPLAINTS The applicant invokes Articles 6 and 10 of the Convention. 1.     He complains about the unfairness of the proceedings leading to the imposition of the custodial penalty on him. In particular, he complains about the lack of impartiality on the part of judges in that the judges who were offended imposed the penalty. He also alleges the inequality of arms and the lack of objectivity on the part of the court in that he had no time and facilities to prepare his defence, he was not heard by the court or even, present when the penalty was being ordered. He also complains that the decision on the imposition of the penalty for contempt of court was not reasoned. 2.     The applicant also complains that the penalty had been entirely executed before his interlocutory appeal against it was examined by the appellate court. In other words he submits that his challenge to the lawfulness of his detention was not examined speedily. 3.     The applicant also complains about the disproportionate severity of the punishment he received for expressing his views in the atmosphere of heightened tension as a person who had suffered communist repressions and had a right to freely participate in the political debate in the democratic society.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES   Insofar as the applicant received custodial penalty of 14 days for contempt of court:   1.     Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?   2.     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charge against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular: (a) Was the principle of equality of arms respected in view of the applicant’s removal from the courtroom? (b) Was the court which dealt with the applicant’s case impartial, as required by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   3.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to freedom of expression, in particular his right to impart information and ideas, guaranteed by Article 10 of the Convention? In particular, to what extent are the duties and responsibilities inherent in the applicant’s activities and social role relevant to his claim and the State’s margin of appreciation in this field?