Communicated on 2 November 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 77103/13 Włodzimierz BASZCZYŃSKI against Poland lodged on 27 November 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Włodzimierz Baszczyński , is a Polish national, who was born in 1956 and is detained in Łódź .

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

1. The criminal proceedings

Since August 2009 the prosecution service was investigating a criminal gang trading in drugs.

The applicant was arrested on 21 December 2010. On 23 December 2010 the Łódź District Court decided to detain him on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been trading in drugs together with accomplices. The detention on remand was extended on 18 March 2011.

On 28 June 2011 the Łódź Regional Court extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention.

On 14 September 2011 the bill of indictment against the applicant and 59 other persons was lodged with the Łodź Regional Court ( Sygn akt XVIII K 169/11).

Afterwards, the applicant ’ s detention was extended by the Łódź Regional Court on 18 January and 23 April 2012 and by Łódź Court of Appeal on 14 August and 19 December 2012.

The Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant ’ s detention on 24 April, 25 September and 18 December 2013 and 25 March, 25 June and 22 October 2014. The court relied on a high probability that the accused had committed the offences and the complexity of the trial. The court also considered that the accused had been undertaking actions aiming at obstructing the proper course of the proceedings; however, without specifying what illegal actions had taken place or whether the applicant had been implicated in them. The Court of Appeal also considered as high the probability of a severe sentence being imposed on the applicant.

On 28 January and 25 March 2015 the Łódz Court of Appeal further extended his detention.

The applicant ’ s appeals against the decisions extending his detention and numerous requests for release were dismissed.

On 30 March 2015 the Łódź Regional Court gave a judgment in the case concerning thirty co-accused . The applicant was convicted of multiple offences and sentenced to fourteen years ’ imprisonment. The applicant requested a written copy of the judgment be served on him with the intention to appeal against it.

2. Proceedings under the 2004 Act

On an unspecified date in 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Łódź Court of Appeal under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”).

On 11 July 2012 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint.

In 2015 the applicant repeated his complaint under the 2004 Act but it was rejected on 15 April 2015 for formal reasons, as the applicant failed to pay 100 Polish zlotys in court fee.

3. Contacts with his son

The applicant has a son, A., born on 13 December 2010. On numerous occasions his common-law wife, Ms K.P., requested a leave to visit the applicant with the baby. In addition K.P. has a son O. from her previous relationship born in 2006.

On 16 October 2012 the Łódz Regional Court allowed K.P. to visit the applicant together with O. and A., who was at that time 21 months old. The decision however stipulated that the visit may only take place “in a manner excluding direct contact between the visitors and the detainee”. It meant that the applicant and the visitors were separated by a Plexiglas and had to use a telephone in order to communicate. The decision contains no reasons.

The applicant repeated his request for an “open visit” with his baby arguing that A does not speak yet and a communication trough a telephone would be meaningless to him.

On 16 May 2014 the Łódz Regional Court allowed a visit between the applicant and his child, together with K.P., in identical conditions as before. The decision contains no reasons.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practi ce concerning the imposition of pre ‑ trial detention ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other “preventive measures” ( Å›rodki zapobiegawcze ) are stated in the Court ’ s judgments in the cases of GoÅ‚ek v. Poland , n o. 31330/02, §§ 27 ‑ 33, 25 April 2006, and Celejewski v. Poland , n o. 17584/04, §§ 22 ‑ 23, 4 August 2006.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of his detention on remand and the criminal proceedings against him. He further complains that he was prevented from seeing his son which whom he was not allowed to have a direct visit, only through a telephone. The applicant maintained that his son was very little and could not talk; only a direct visit would be meaningful in such circumstances and would allow them to build a relationship.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the length of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention exceed a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to the Court ’ s pilot judgment in the case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland and its finding that excessive length of judicial proceedings in Poland has disclosed a systemic problem, was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

The parties are asked to make their comments in the light of that judgment (see, in particular, Rutkowski and Others v. Poland , nos. 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11 , §§ 203-210, 7 July 2015).

3. Having regard to the domestic court ’ s refusal to grant the applicant compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings in his case and the Court ’ s finding in Rutkowski and Others :

a) that a complaint under the 2004 Act has lacked effectiveness in its compensatory aspect; and

b) that the insufficiency of compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from excessive length of judicial proceedings awarded by the domestic courts has disclosed a systemic problem,

has there been a breach of Article 13 of the Convention in the present case?

The parties are asked to make their comments in the light of the pilot judgment (see, in particular, Rutkowski and Others §§ 203-206 and 211-22).

4. Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life, contrary to Article 8 of the Convention, on account of restrictions imposed on the applicant ’ s contacts with his son?

The parties are requested to inform the Court on which dates the applicant had seen his son during his pre-trial detention and in what conditions.

5. The Government are requested to provide a copy of the decision of the Łódź Court of Appeal given on 11 July 2012 following the applicant ’ s complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.