CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 22 juin 2016

.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 } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt }   Communicated on 22 June 2016   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 52224/15 Dariusz OSIŃSKI against Poland lodged on 12 October 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Dariusz Osiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and is detained in Warsaw. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 4 April 2013 the applicant was charged with kidnapping for ransom and remanded in custody. On 11 April 2013 the Warsaw Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (“the commission”) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. Subsequently the regime was extended every three months: on 4   July, 2   October, and 30 December 2013. In 2014 the regime was extended on 31   March, 26 June, and 25 September. All those decisions of the disciplinary board (i) contained the same wording and (ii) justified extending the regime by arguing that it was necessary to hold the applicant in isolation. On 17 December 2014 and 16 March 2015 respectively the commission extended the regime for a further three months. In its reasoning the commission cited his character and the violent nature of the crime with which he had been charged. The applicant was not notified of the dates of the sessions of the commission and he was never present at them. He was not given copies of the decisions of the commission and was not informed of his right to appeal against those decisions. Moreover, his lawyer was not informed of the decisions of the commission. On one occasion – on 16 March 2015 – the applicant was told that the commission had again extended the regime imposed on him. He brought an action in the Regional Court contesting that extension. On 14 April 2015 the Regional Court upheld the decision on the basis of an inaccurate statement by the Warsaw Remand Centre that the applicant had recently been punished for a breach of discipline. The Regional Court amended that ruling on 12 June 2015. On 11 June 2015 the commission decided to lift the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant. It considered that his behaviour while in detention had not given any cause for reproach. B.     Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of “dangerous detainee” status are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Piechowicz v. Poland (no. 20071/07, §§ 105-117, 17 April 2012) and Horych v. Poland (no. 13621/08, §§ 44-56, 17 April 2012). COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 3 of the Convention about the imposition of a lengthy “dangerous detainee” regime. He further complains about unfairness of the proceedings before the penitentiary commission as he was not informed about the decisions and never received copies of the decisions issued in his case. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant between 11 April 2013 and 11 June 2015, was he subjected to treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention? The parties are requested to refer in their observations to the leading judgment of Piechowicz v. Poland , no. 20071/07, 17 April 2012.   2.     Having regard to the applicant’s complaint about a lack of a fair trial in the proceedings before the penitentiary commission and a lack of an effective remedy against the decisions of the penitentiary commission to impose and extend the “dangerous detainee” regime: a)     Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? Reference is made to the case of Enea v. Italy [GC], no. 74912/01, § 107, ECHR 2009. b)     Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy, as required by Article 13 of the Convention?