Communicated on 7 July 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 446/10 Juozas PUGŽLYS against Poland lodged on 13 November 2009

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Juozas Pugžlys, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1966 and is currently detained in Suwałki Remand Centre . He is represented before the Court by Mr L. Belevičius, a lawyer practising in Vilnius.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant (case no. IVK 338/06)

On 30 April 2003 the Suwałki Regional Prosecutor ’ s Office issued an arrest warrant against the applicant on suspicion of leading an international organised criminal group and of several counts of kidnapping for ransom committed within the group. On the same day the Suwałki District Court issued a decision ordering the applicant ’ s detention on remand, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It attached importance to the risk that the applicant could attempt to obstruct the proceedings by bringing pressure to bear on witnesses and other suspects.

On 22 April 2003 the applicant was arrested in the Netherlands.

The extradition request, arrest warrant and detention order were sent to the Netherlands. The applicant was transferred to Poland on 20 October 2003.

On 8 April 2004 the Suwalki Regional Persecutor indicted the applicant before the Augustow District Court. The case was later transferred to the Lublin Regional Court.

The applicant ’ s appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against subsequent decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him were unsuccessful.

In the meantime, in another set of criminal proceedings, on 1 April 2005 the Suwałki Regional Court convicted the applicant of armed robbery and sentenced to four years and six months ’ imprisonment (II K 96/04). The judgment was upheld on appeal. He served this sentence from 21 January 2006 until 20 July 2010.

On 27 January 2010 the Lublin Regional Court (IV Ka 338/06) convicted the applicant as charged. The applicant was sentenced to 12 years ’ imprisonment. The period of the applicant ’ s detention from 22 April 2003 until 20 January 2006 was credited towards the sentence.

On 7 December 2010 the Lublin Court of Appeal (II AKa 235/10) upheld the conviction.

On 4 April 2012 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant ’ s cassation appeal. The translation into Lithuanian of this judgment was notified to the applicant on 7 July 2012.

2. Imposition of the so – called “dangerous detainee” regime

On 21 October 2003 the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. It relied on that it was necessary to place the applicant in a cell in a special high-security ward. The commission held that one of the reasons for the classification was that the applicant had been suspected of committing offences within an organised criminal group (Article 212a §3 and §4 (c) of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences).

On an unspecified date the applicant lodged a complaint with the Lublin Regional Inspectorate of Prison Service about the constant monitoring of his cell, body searches and lack of open visits. On 15 February 2010 the complaint was declared manifestly ill-founded.

Every three months the Lublin Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission reviewed and upheld its decision classifying the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. The applicant ’ s appeals were dismissed by the Lublin Regional Court which held that the penitentiary commission had made a comprehensive assessment of the applicant ’ s behaviour and thus the decision had been lawful.

The applicant remains classified as a “dangerous detainee”.

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 the lengthy imposition of the dangerous detainee regime on him. He complains, inter alia , about the solitary confinement, constant personal checks, surveillance by cameras in his cell including the toilet and shower. Moreover the applicant complains that all decisions issued by the penitentiary commission and the court were in Polish only and he had no interpreter in those proceedings. He complains that the proceedings were unfair and there was no effective remedy against the commission ’ s decisions.

The applicant further complains under the same Article about being placed in a cage, handcuffed, during 104 hearings before the trial court. It was humiliating, degrading, painful, and prevented him from taking any notes. He submits that he was complaining about it but the authorities failed to react. The applicant underlines that during his trial or detention he was never violent towards the prison guards or other persons.

He complains about unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him in that his defence rights were breached. The applicant submits that he could not communicate with his court appointed lawyer and his applications to change the lawyer were all dismissed. Moreover, he had only limited access to the case file and the documents in his file were not translated into Lithuanian. He was not granted a translator for his meetings with the lawyer, during the hearings and outside them, and for consultation of the case file.

Finally the applicant complains about limitation of visiting rights with his family. In particular he was not allowed to call his daughter for 7 years.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

As regards Article 3 – “dangerous detainee” regime

1. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant since 21 October 2003 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.

As regards Article 3 – cage and handcuffs during court hearings

2. Was the applicant ’ s placement in a cage, handcuffed, during hearings before the Lublin Regional Court compatible with requirements of Article 3 of the Convention (see for instance Piruzyan v. Armenia , no. 33376/07, 26 June 2012)?

As regards Articles 6 and 13 – proceedings before the penitentiary commission

3. 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?

As regards Article 6 § 3 (b), (c) and (e) – interpreter and defence rights

4. Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention? Was the applicant afforded free legal assistance, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 (c) of the Convention? Was the applicant afforded the free assistance of an interpreter, within the meaning of Article 6 § 3 (e) of the Convention?

Reference is made to the allegations that the applicant ’ s court appointed lawyer spoke no Lithuanian, his requests to have him changed were dismissed and he had not enough time to get acquainted with his case-file. Moreover he was not allowed assistance of an interpreter for his meetings with the lawyer, outside the hearings and during them, and for consultation of the file although all documents were only in Polish.

As regards Article 8 – restrictions on contact with the family

5 . Has there been a violation of the applicant ’ s right to respect for his family life guaranteed by Article 8 of the Convention on account of the restrictions imposed on his contact with his family members, including with his daughter by telephone, during his detention?

In connection with this question and question no. 1 above, the Government are asked to supply a list of visits received by the applicant from his family members and other persons, including phone calls, throughout his detention (from 21 October 2003 until present). The list should specify the dates, the names of the visitors, the nature of the visits and their length.

Request for documents

The Government are invited to submit copies of the following documents in Polish:

- the applicant ’ s appeal against the judgment of the Lublin Regional Court of 27 January 2010 and cassation appeal against the judgment of the Lublin Court of Appeal of 7 December 2010;

- the above-mentioned judgments and the Supreme Court ’ s judgment of 4 April 2012 with reasoning;

- the relevant decision imposing the “dangerous detainee” regime on the applicant and further decisions extending the application of the regime.