PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 14450/02) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by a Polish national, Mr Maciej Maksym (“the applicant”), on 25 April 2000.

The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

On 9 May 2006 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate ex officio the issue of the possible monitoring of the applicant's correspondence to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Gliwice, Poland.

A. The criminal proceedings against the applicant

The applicant was the owner of a company in Gdańsk (Agencja Rozwoju Przedsiębiorczości i Inwestycji w Gdańsku). On 8 April 1999 he was arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 10 April 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered his detention on remand.

On 21 May 1999 the applicant began serving a 3 years and 10 months' prison sentence, which resulted from another conviction.

On 9 January 2000 the Gdańsk District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years and 6 months' imprisonment.

On 18 October 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld the applicant's conviction.

On 9 May 2002 the applicant was again arrested on suspicion of fraud. On 10 May 2002 the Olsztyn District Court ordered his detention on remand. On 16 September 2002 the Olsztyn District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 3 years' imprisonment.

Upon the applicant's appeal, the Olsztyn Regional Court amended the first‑instance judgment on 30 January 2003. The applicant filed a cassation appeal. On 1 March 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant's cassation appeal as manifestly ill‑founded.

B. The monitoring of the applicant's correspondence

At the time of lodging his application with the Court the applicant had been detained on remand in the course of criminal proceedings against him. At the same time, as of 21 May 1999 he was serving a prison sentence imposed in the course of another set of criminal proceedings against him.

On 6 June 2000, the Registry of the Court received the applicant's letter dated 12 April 2000. Both the letter and the envelope bear a stamp “Censored on... judge” and no signature (Cenzurowano dn... sędzia.). The envelope had been opened and then sealed with adhesive tape.

On 13 February 2001, the Registry of the Court received another letter from the applicant (dated 29 December 2000). It was delivered in an envelope bearing a stamp “Censored on ... judge” and no signature (Cenzurowano dn... sędzia.). It also bears a red stamp “Remand Centre in Gdańsk” (Areszt Śledczy w Gdańsku).

On 25 June 2001, the Registry of the Court received another letter from the applicant, dated 24 July 2000 (sent on 13 June 2001). It was delivered in an envelope bearing a stamp “Censored on... judge” and no signature (Cenzurowano dn... sędzia.). The envelope had been sealed with adhesive tape. It also bears a handwritten note: “letter admitted to transport sealed with adhesive tape” (list przyjęty do przewozu oklejony taśmą).