Communicated on 26 May 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 67974/14 Artur ŁOŃSKI against Poland lodged on 7 November 2014

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Artur Łoński , is a Polish national, who was born in 1977 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 30 March 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal finally convicted the applicant for having been a leader of an organised armed gang. He was sentenced to 14 years of imprisonment.

On 13 February 2013 the Warsaw Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission ( Komisja Penitencjarna ) (“the commission”) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. Every three months the commission repeatedly reviewed and upheld its decision classifying the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”.

The applicant complained against most of the decision s of the commission however his appeals were dismissed by the Warsaw Regional Court. The main ground for imposition and extension of the regime was the serious nature of the offences committed by the applicant and his lack of moral character.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

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 mainly Article 3 of the Convention about lengthy imposition on him of the “dangerous detainee” regim e and various aspects of the application of the regim e.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant since 13 February 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.

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