CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 9 février 2017

.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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt }   Communicated on 9 February 2017   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 45564/15 Damian WALCZAK against Poland lodged on 7 October 2015 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Damian Walczak, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Plewiska. He is represented before the Court by Mr   P.   Binas, a lawyer practising in Poznań. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 16 December 2014 the applicant was arrested on charges of robbery and detained on remand by the Poznań-Nowe Miasto District Court for three months (16 March 2015). On 30 December 2014 the applicant’s wife, M.W., applied to be allowed to visit the applicant in the detention centre. On 5 January 2015 the Poznań-Nowe Miasto district prosecutor refused the request on the grounds that M.W. was a witness in the proceedings. M.W.’s further applications for permission to visit the applicant in the detention centre of 26 February and 24 March 2015 were dismissed by the prosecutor on 27 February and 24 March 2015. The prosecutor noted that there was a need to hear evidence from M.W. Consequently, it was not possible to grant her request. On 3 April 2015 M.W. refused to testify in the investigation stage of the proceedings against the applicant. On the same day M.W. again applied to be allowed to visit the applicant in the detention centre. On 7 April 2015 the prosecutor refused M.W.’s request on the grounds that she could still be asked to testify as the investigation was still ongoing. M.W.’s further applications for permission to visit the applicant of 28   May, 15 June and 15 July 2015 were dismissed by the prosecutor on 5   and 15 June and on 24 July 2015 on the grounds that doing so could have impeded the course of proceedings as she knew other witnesses and also had access to the applicant’s computer. On 28 August 2015 the Poznań Regional Prosecutor dismissed M.W.’s interlocutory appeal against the decision of 15   June 2015. The applicant’s request of 29 June 2015 to allow him to a have a prison visit from his wife was dismissed by the prosecutor on 6 July 2015. On 10 September 2015 the Poznań Regional Court refused M.W.’s application to visit the applicant referring to the fact that she was a witness in the proceedings against him. On 24 September 2015 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed her interlocutory appeal. On 15 October 2015 the applicant’s wife was allowed by the Poznań Regional Court to visit him in the detention centre for the first time. Her subsequent requests were also granted. The applicant submits that there were no significant developments in the proceedings after 15 October 2015. In particular, his wife was not asked to testify at any of the hearings held after that date. The applicant was released from detention on 4 February 2016. It would appear that the applicant had no contact with his wife from 16   December 2014 until 15 October 2015 that is to say for nearly 10   months. COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 8 of the Convention that serious restrictions were placed on his contacts with his wife. He stresses that the reason for the refusals was arbitrary as it was based on M.W.’s witness status, despite the fact that she had taken advantage of her right to refuse to testify against him. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right to respect for his family life, as guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention, on account of the restrictions imposed on his contacts with his wife?