Communicated on 1 September 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 22457/11 Marek PODLECKI against Poland lodged on 22 February 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Marek Podlecki , is a Polish national who was born in 1959. He is currently serving a prison sentence in the Szczecin prison.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

At the relevant time the applicant was detained on remand at the Szczecin Remand Centre. On 30 September 2009 a bill of indictment against him and two other co ‑ accused was lodged with the Szczecin Regional Court (case no. III K 240/09). The applicant was charged with armed robbery.

On an unspecified date in November or December 2010 the applicant ’ s cousin, Mr M.G., requested permission to visit the applicant. On 9 December 2010 the Szczecin Regional Court refused this request. The decision was worded as follows:

“Pursuant to Article 217 § 1a of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences I refuse M.G. permission to visit remand prisoner Marek Podlecki [the applicant]

because

the person requesting permission to visit is not the accused ’ s next of kin within the meaning of Article 115 § 11 of the Criminal Code”.

On 30 January 2011 the applicant complained to the President of the Szczecin Regional Court about this decision. On 7 February 2011 the President of the Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s complaint as unfounded. He informed the applicant that decisions concerning permission to visit given by the President of the Criminal Division did not have to contain reasons and that no appeal lay against them.

On an unspecified date in January or February 2011 the applicant ’ s fiancée, Ms E.G., requested permission to visit the applicant. On 9 February 2011 the Vice-President of the III Criminal Division of the Szczecin Regional Court refused this request. The content of the decision was identical to the decision given earlier in respect of the applicant ’ s cousin.

According to the applicant, he has known Ms E.G. since 2002 and that since 2010 their relationship has become close as evidenced by 75 letters exchanged between them in that period. The applicant and his fiancée intended to get married. All these facts were known to the Szczecin Regional Court which monitored the applicant ’ s correspondence in accordance with the relevant regulations concerning remand prisoners.

On 9 February 2011 the Vice-President of the III Criminal Division of the Regional Court informed the applicant that Mr M.G. and Ms E.G. had been refused permission to visit him because they did not fall in the category of next of kin of the accused within the meaning of Article 115 § 11 of the Criminal Code.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The rules governing the right to visits in detention were set in the Court ’ s judgment in the case of Piechowicz v. Poland , no. 20071/07, §§ 118-122, 17 April 2012.

In its judgment of 2 July 2009 (case no. K 1/07), the Constitutional Court ruled that Article 217 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences was incompatible with a number of constitutional provisions and Article 8 of the Convention. Subsequently, Parliament adopted amendments to this provision which entered into force on 8 June 2010. In particular, subparagraphs 1a-1f were added. These provisions stipulate that a detainee is entitled to at least one visit per month from his next of kin. In addition, they indicate specific conditions for refusing a family visit to a detainee and provide an appeal procedure against such a refusal.

Article 115 § 11 of the Criminal Code provides as follows:

“A next of kin is a spouse, an ascendant, descendant, brother or sister, relative by marriage in the same line or degree, a person being an adopted relation, as well as his spouse, and also a life-partner.”

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains that decisions , refusing him visits from his cousin and his fiancée , infringed his right to respect for his family life.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Has there been an interference with the applicant ’ s right to respect for his private and family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention? If so, was that interference in accordance with the law and necessary in terms of Article 8 § 2?

2. The Government are requested to provide copies of all requests for permission to visit the applicant during the relevant period and of his appeal of 30 January 2011 to which the President of the Szczecin Regional Court replied on 7 February 2011.