Communicated on 4 June 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 58562/13 Tomasz CYBULA against Poland lodged on 2 September 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Tomasz Cybula , is a Polish national, who was born in 1983 and is detained in Bydgoszcz .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 22 April 2013 the Włocławek Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. It appears that the reason was the assessment that the applicant posed a serious danger to the security of the Włocławek Prison .

The applicant did not receive a copy of the decision but he nevertheless appealed against it.

It appears that on an unspecified date the Włocławek Regional Court upheld the decision. The applicant was not notified of this decision.

The regime was not extended beyond 17 July 2013. The applicant remains in detention.

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).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention about the lengthy imposition of the “ dangerous detainee ” regime and unfairness of the proceedings before the penitentiary commission . He complains that he never received copies of the decision imposing on him the regime and could not effectively appeal against it.

QUESTION S TO THE PARTIES

1 . Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant between 22 April and 17 July 2013 , has he been 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 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?

The Government are invited to submit a copy of the relevant decision imposing the regime on the applicant , a decision of the court upholding the application of the regime and the final judgment convicting the applicant .