Communicated on 10 September 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 71760/11 Norbert REMBAK against Poland lodged on 3 November 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Norbert Rembak , is a Polish national, who was born in 1985 and currently detained in Kielce Remand Centre .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1 . The applicant ’ s arrest and detention on remand

On 22 June 2005 t he applicant was arrested under the suspicion of having committed homicide and robbery.

On 2 3 June 2005 the Kielce District Court detained him on remand .

On 20 August 2007 the Kielce Regional Court sentenced the applicant to a cumulative sentence of 25 years of imprisonment.

On 5 November 2008 the Krakow Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and remitted the case.

On 9 December 2010 another first instance judgment was given by the Kielce Regional Court . The applicant was again sentenced to 25 years of imprisonment .

On 2 4 November 2011 the Krakow Court of Appeal quashed the judgment with regard to the homicide charge, while upholding it with regard to the robbery . The sentence of 6 years of imprisonment was upheld. The period of the applicant ’ s detention had already exceeded his sentence on 22 June 2011. However the applicant remained in detention on remand.

On 24 November 2011 the Krakow Court of Appeal extended the applicant ’ s detention until 7 May 2012. The applicant appealed and his appeal was dismissed by the same court on 28 December 2011.

The most recent decision produced by the applicant extending his detention until 24 June 2013 was given by the Kielce Regional Court on 24 January 2013. The courts relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed homicide and the high probability that a severe sentence would be imposed on him.

The applicant appealed against this decision. He complained, among other things, that for many years he had been separated from his family and could not attend his son ’ s first communion. The applicant also requested that the preventive measure imposed on him be varied.

On 6 March 2013 the Kraków Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal. The court repeated the same grounds for the applicant ’ s detention as previously and concluded that the limitation of contacts with family was a natural consequence of the applicant ’ s deprivation of liberty. The court found no grounds to vary the preventive measure imposed on the applicant.

T he applicant is apparently still detained on remand , at present only with regard to the homicide charge . The proceedings are pending before the Kielce Regional Court.

2. The applicant ’ s placement in a cell for dangerous detainees

In his recent letter of 27 February 2012 submitted after his application form, the applicant also complains of the fact that he had been classified as a dangerous detainee and had been detaine d under a special security regime, first in the period 2007-2009 and afterwards between 12 April 2010 and 28 September 2011. He submitted that for most of the time in these periods he had been placed in a single cell which was a form of disciplinary penalty.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Detention on remand

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre ‑ trial detention ( tymczasowe aresztowanie ), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other so-called “preventive measures” ( Å›rodki zapobiegawcze ) are stated in the Court ’ s judgments in the cases of KudÅ‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; BagiÅ„ski v. Poland , no. 37444/97, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; and Celejewski v. Poland , no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006.

2. “Dangerous detainee ” regime

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of the “ dangerous detainee ” regime 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 without invoking any provision of the Convention that when he was detained on remand he spent 37 months in more severe conditions because he had been classified as a “dangerous detainee”.

He also complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand .

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant , 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 .

2 . What was the legal basis, the reasons and the dates of the imposition of the dangerous detainee regime on the applicant?

3. Was the length of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

The Government are requested to produce copies of the relevant decisions imposing the dangerous detainee regime on the applicant and further decisions extending the application of the regime until 28 September 2011.