CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 27 février 2019

.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 }   Communicated on 27 February 2019   FIRST SECTION Application no. 39873/18 Alina DŁUŻEWSKA against Poland lodged on 13 August 2018 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the applicant’s pre-trial detention between 30   January 2017 and 4 December 2018 on suspicion of fraud, corruption and influence peddling in the context of reprivatisation of property in Warsaw. The applicant complains under Article 3 that her pre-trial detention was incompatible with her advanced age (80 years’ old) and her state of health. She submits that she suffers from a number of disorders. In particular, as a breast cancer survivor she requires regular oncological treatment. She also suffers from serious atherosclerosis and underwent an angioplasty procedure while in pre-trial detention. She further complains under Article 5   §   3 of the Convention that her pre ‑ trail detention lasted unjustifiably long and was not supported by relevant and sufficient reasons on the part of the domestic courts. QUESTIONS tO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant been subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment, in breach of Article   3 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s age and state of health compatible with conditions of her pre ‑ trial detention (see, inter alia, Contrada v. Italy (no. 2) , no.   7509/08, §§   82-85, 11 February 2014, Farbtuhs v. Latvia , no. 4672/02, §§   55-61, 2   December 2004)? 2.     Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention between 30   January 2017 and 4 December 2018 in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention? In particular, were any less severe measures considered and found to be insufficient to secure the proper course of the proceedings?