Published on 19 February 2024

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 36794/19 Violetta GŁADYSIAK against Poland lodged on 28 June 2019 communicated on 1 February 2024

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The case concerns alleged shortcomings in the judicial review of the applicant’s habeas corpus appeal. The applicant’s detention on remand which started on 24 October 2018 was based on the existence of a reasonable suspicion that she had committed fraud and incited three witnesses to give false testimonies and on grounds relating to the risk of interfering with the ongoing investigation. On 5 December 2018 the Kalisz Regional Court upheld the detention order.

On 16 January 2019 the applicant’s lawyer was informed via telephone that on 21 January 2019 the Kalisz Regional Court would hold a session on the possible extension of the applicant’s detention. However, on 18 January 2019 at around 11 a.m., the applicant’s lawyer was informed that the hearing in question would take place on the same day at 2.30 p.m. He sent an electronic message asking the court to postpone the hearing so that he could attend. It appears he did not receive any reply to this request.

At a session held on 18 January 2019 the applicant’s detention on remand was extended for one month. On the applicant’s appeal, on 13 February 2019 the Łódź Court of Appeal changed the previous decision and prolonged the detention for another month (until 21 March 2019). The court held that the applicant’s lawyer had been correctly informed about the session of 18 January 2019 and could have appointed another lawyer.

The applicant complains that she was deprived of the opportunity to defend herself during the procedure relating to the extension of her detention on remand. She refers to the fact that her lawyer could not attend the session held on 18 January 2019 since his law firm was in Poznań, 150 km away from Kalisz. Furthermore, having regard to the complexity of the case and the very short notice, designation of another lawyer as a substitute would not have been possible. The applicant relies on Article 6 § 3 (b) and (c) of the Convention.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the applicant have at her disposal an effective procedure by which she could challenge the lawfulness of her detention, as required by Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?