5.  The applicant was born in 1964 and lives in Katowice. 6.  The applicant is a former activist of an anti-communist opposition group, who was interned in 1982. 7.  He observed the trial against three high-ranking members of the communist-era Military Council of National Salvation who had ordered the imposition of martial law in Poland in December 1981. 8.  The trial in question, which lasted from 2007 until 2015, attracted a lot of public attention in Poland. 9.  On 12 January 2012 the main defendant, General C.K. was convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment. This penalty was reduced by half under the Amnesty Act and its execution was suspended for five years in view of the defendant’s old age and poor health. Another defendant was acquitted and another had her case discontinued. On 15 June 2015 the appellate court upheld the first-instance judgment. 10.  The applicant was in the courtroom when on 12 January 2012 the Warsaw Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) was to deliver its judgment in the case described above. 11.  At 1.30 p.m., after the judges had arrived in the courtroom, the applicant jumped behind the judge’s table and shouted: “This is a mockery of justice!” (Tutaj trwa kpina z wymiaru sprawiedliwości). 12.  The judges left the courtroom. 13.  Some other members of the audience shouted “Disgrace!” and “Court before the court!” (Hańba and Sąd pod sąd). They were all holding up photos of victims of the communist regime. 14.  The applicant was forcibly removed from the courtroom. 15.  Shortly afterwards, he returned and continued shouting out similar statements joint by other members of the audience. In view of the audience’s refusal to leave the courtroom, the judge who was presiding over the trial decided to announce the judgment from a different room. 16.  At 3 p.m. the trial was resumed in a new room, with the public comprising only journalists. Here, in the applicant’s absence, the Warsaw Regional Court imposed on him a disciplinary custodial penalty of fourteen days for contempt of court (“for the breach of the solemn nature, serenity and the course of court proceedings, to the degree making the announcement of the judgment impossible”). 17.  On 12 January 2012 a written decision, in the form of an extract from the court minutes as described in the preceding paragraph, was issued to that effect. 18.  The applicant submitted that he had not been served with that decision or informed of it. 19.  On the day of the trial in question, that is 12 January 2012, a warrant was issued ordering the applicant’s placement in a penal facility with a view to his serving the penalty. On 13 January 2012 a warrant to this effect was sent to Katowice police station together with a copy of the court’s decision imposing the disciplinary punishment. 20.  On 19 January 2012 the applicant was served with a warrant and then arrested so that he could be committed to Warsaw Remand Centre to serve the penalty in a closed regime. 21.  On 22 January 2012 the applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the decision imposing the custodial penalty. He argued that his one-minute statement had not disturbed the court to such an extent as to make it impossible to announce the judgment. He also submitted that if the presiding judge had told him to return to his seat, he would have complied. Since only a copy of the first page of the applicant’s appeal has been submitted to the Court, it is unclear whether the applicant had also raised the argument of the lack of impartiality of the judges who had punished him for contempt of court. 22.  On 30 January 2012 this appeal was registered with the Registry of the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). 23.  On 31 January 2012 the applicant’s appeal was transferred to the Warsaw Regional Court for comment. 24.  On 1 February 2012 the appeal together with the Regional Court’s comments was received by the Warsaw Court of Appeal. The appellate hearing was scheduled for 23 February 2012. 25.  On 2 February 2012 – the fourteenth day of the applicant’s detention – the Prison Board of the Warsaw Remand Centre decided that the applicant should be detained under a semi-open regime (with the possibility to leave his cell during the day). 26.  Following that decision, the applicant was transferred for several hours to a remand centre with a semi-open regime. 27.  He was released later that day. 28.  On an unspecified date, the appellate hearing was rescheduled because of the judge’s illness for 22 March 2012. 29.  On 22 March 2012 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s interlocutory appeal, finding that the applicant’s disrespectful behaviour had interfered with the solemn nature of court proceedings and with the court’s dignity, and had disrupted the proceedings. His action had provoked the audience to shout similar slogans. It had been premeditated as the applicant had known that the announcement of the judgment had been scheduled for live media broadcast. The court also considered that the applicant’s behaviour could not be explained by an emotional disagreement with the court’s ruling because at the time of the incident the applicant had been unaware of the outcome of the trial. The applicant had wished to disturb the order of the proceedings irrespective of their result. In the domestic court’s view, imposing a more lenient penalty would have sanctioned unaccountability and would have lacked a deterrent effect.