Communicated on 7 July 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 72872/12 Robert RUDNIK against Poland lodged on 28 September 2012

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Robert Rudnik, is a Polish national, who was born in 1971 and is currently detained in Lublin Remand Centre .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

1. Other sets of criminal proceedings

Since an unspecified date the applicant had been detained on remand in connection with criminal charges against him. The applicant has been involved in several sets of criminal proceedings against him.

On 7 February 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court ( VK 87/05) convicted the applicant, and seven other co-accused, of robberies acting in an organised criminal group. The applicant was sentenced to six years and six months ’ imprisonment. His detention was further extended.

The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment.

On 4 July 2013 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( IIAKa 161/13) upheld the judgment.

2. The main set of criminal proceedings (case no. IIKp 21/06; case no. VK 164/08; case no. IIAKa 250/13)

On 18 May 2006 the Bialystok District Court (III Kp 1009/06) decided to detain the applicant on remand on suspicion of murder, trafficking in arms, and production and trafficking in drugs acting in an organised criminal group.

On 16 September 2008 the applicant was indicted before the Warsaw Regional Court.

The applicant ’ s detention was subsequently extended by decisions of the Warsaw Regional Court, the Bialystok Regional Court, the Bialystok Court of Appeal and the Bialystok District Court.

On 10 September 2010 the prosecutor amended the charges against the applicant.

On 30 October 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court (V K 164/08) convicted the applicant of fourteen counts of various offences including two counts of murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment. On the same day his detention was further extended.

The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment.

On 30 September 2013 the Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the judgment.

3. Imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime

The applicant was detained in several remand centres.

On 4 February 2005 the Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. This application of the regime on the applicant was subsequently extended.

The applicant appealed against most of the decisions of the Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission.

His appeals were dismissed by the Warsaw Regional Court. In all of the decisions, the court held that the decisions of the Warsaw – Mokotów Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission had been lawful and justified by, among other things, the applicant ’ s possible attempt to escape when he would be convoyed or the applicant ’ s negative behaviour in the detention facilities as well as that he had committed a murder.

Additionally, in the decision of 20 September 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court held that the decision of the Warsaw - Mokotów Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission had been fully justified and that the commission had taken into account the nature of the offences committed by the applicant, i.e. that he had committed a murder acting within an organised criminal group.

Most recently, on 3 October 2013 the Warsaw – Mokotów Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission extended the imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime on the applicant. The applicant remains classified as a “dangerous detainee”.

B. Relevant domestic law

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).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Articles 3, 6 and 13 of the Convention about the lengthy imposition of the “dangerous detainee” regime and unfairness of the proceedings before the penitentiary commission. He complains that there was no effective remedy against the decisions of the commission.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Having regard to the cumulative effect of the “dangerous detainee” regime imposed on the applicant since 4 February 2005, 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 relevant decision imposing the regime on the applicant and further decisions extending the application of the regime.