Communicated on 7 July 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 9599/13 Jacek NOWAK against Poland lodged on 8 January 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jacek Nowak, is a Polish national, who was born in 1966 and is currently detained in Warszawa 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 criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 20 September 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police in Sweden under the suspicion that he had committed a murder. In August 2000 the applicant was transferred to Poland where he was charged with murder of A and attempted murder of B.

On 18 May 2005 the Szczecin Regional Court (III K 350/03) convicted the applicant of having committed a murder and an attempted murder for motives deserving particular condemnation. He was sentenced to life imprisonment and deprivation of civic rights for 10 years.

On 21 September 2005 Szczecin Court of Appeal (II Aka 122/05) quashed the judgment and remitted the case.

On 5 November 2007 the Szczecin Regional Court (IIIK 222/05) again convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. The applicant appealed.

On 14 February 2008 the Szczecin Court of Appeal (II Aka 162/07) upheld the judgment but amended the legal qualification of the offences committed by the applicant in that it considered that they had not been committed “for motives deserving particular condemnation”. The court considered that there had been not enough evidence proving that the applicant had been hired to commit a double murder thus the special qualification under Article 148 § 2 (3) had to be removed.

The applicant ’ s cassation appeal was rejected on 4 June 2008.

2. Imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime

On 19 May 2005 the Szczecin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee” (Article 88 § 3 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences) . It considered that it had been necessary to classify the applicant as a “dangerous detainee” as he had been convicted at the first instance of having committed a murder for motives deserving particular condemnation. The commission considered that the applicant had been hired by a criminal gang in order to kill the victim B; moreover, the applicant had shot with “cold blood” the B ’ s girlfriend. It is not clear whether the applicant appealed against this decision.

Afterwards, every three months, the regime was extended.

On 9 June 2009, 15 March, 6 June, 2 September and 24 November 2011 the Radom Regional Court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeals against the decision of the Radom Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission. The court considered that the reasons to impose the “dangerous detainee” regime remain valid pointing to the applicant ’ s serious lack moral character.

His “dangerous detainee” regime was further extended by the Radom Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission on 10 April 2012. The applicant lodged an appeal but it was dismissed by the court only on 1 August 2012.

On 6 July and 4 October 2012 the penitentiary commission further extended the regime. The applicant ’ s appeals were dismissed. The court held that the decisions had been lawful.

On 27 March 2013 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission lifted the regime.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of “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 under Article 3 of the Convention about lengthy imposition of the dangerous detainee regime. He complains in particular about routine strip searches, surveillance cameras in cells, wearing handcuffs joined by chains with fetters when outside cells and keeping light in his cell also at night (for five years).

The applicant also complains under Articles 6 and 13 that he had no effective remedy from the decisions of the Penitentiary Commission imposing on him the special regime and that the proceedings were unfair. He submits the he was no real justification for the imposition of the regime on him and that the commission based on press articles containing untrue information about his criminal activities. The applicant further complains that his appeal against the decision to extend the regime of 10 April 2012 was examined only on 1 August 2012, while it the meantime another decision extended application of the dangerous detainee regime on him on 6 July 2012.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant from 19 May 2005 and 27 March 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 reasoned judgments given in the criminal proceedings against the applicant (of 18 May 2005, 21 September 2005 and 5 November 2007) and copies of decisions of the Remand Centre Penitentiary Commissions given between 2005 and 2010 as well as copy of the decision of 27 March 2013 lifting the regime.