PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 20251/04) 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 Adam Janulis (“the applicant”), on 19 May 2004.

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

The applicant alleged that his detention on remand had exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

On 11 January 2007 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it was decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

The Court decided to raise of its own motion a complaint under Article 8 of the Convention about the censorship of the applicant’s correspondence.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1974 and lives in Ostróda.

A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention on remand

The applicant was arrested on 26 March 2002 at 4 p.m. On the same day the Olsztyn District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody until 26 June 2002 in view of the reasonable suspicion that, together with three other suspects, he had stolen several cars. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary given the risk that he might obstruct the proceedings; the court did not, however, state its reasons for taking such a view. It also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.

The applicant’s appeal against the detention order was unsuccessful, as were his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and his applications for release. His detention was extended on several occasions by the Olsztyn District Court (decisions of 20 May and 23 August 2002, 4 and 14 February 2003 and 14 May 2003) and his appeals against extension were dismissed by the Olsztyn Regional Court (decisions of 26 April 2002, 17 January and 23 May 2003, 6 June 2003 and 16 April 2004). In all these decisions the courts relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention or simply found that the reasons for his continued detention given in their previous decisions “were still relevant”.

On 27 September 2002 the first hearing took place. Evidence was heard from the applicant and his co-accused. The applicant behaved in an arrogant and disorderly manner and was expelled from the court room. Consequently, the hearing had to be adjourned and no witness evidence was heard that day.

On 14 February 2003 the Olsztyn District Court sentenced the applicant to ten years’ imprisonment. On the same day the Olsztyn District Court extended the applicant’s detention until 14 May 2003.

The applicant and two of his co-accused lodged appeals against the first‑instance judgment.

On 15 October 2003 the Olsztyn Regional Court heard the appeals, quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case for retrial.

In the retrial proceedings the applicant unsuccessfully appealed against further decisions extending his detention. The relevant decisions on extension of his detention were given by the Olsztyn District Court and the Olsztyn Regional Court. The courts again relied on the grounds originally given for the applicant’s detention. They added that there were no circumstances obliging them to release the applicant, with the result that his detention could be continued. In its decision given on 23 January 2004 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against further extension. It relied on the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed on the applicant as well as on the reasonable suspicion, justified by the evidence collected in the proceedings before the first-instance court, that the applicant and his co-accused would obstruct the proceedings. The court further found that the proceedings had been conducted without undue delays and that the applicant’s detention had been necessary to secure the proper course of the proceedings, because the court had had to hear evidence from a certain W.K., who had previously been accused in the same set of proceedings.

Between 5 February 2004 and 16 July 2004 the District Court held seven hearings during which evidence was heard from eighteen witnesses.

Following the retrial, on 16 July 2004, the Olsztyn District Court sentenced the applicant to three years and eight months’ imprisonment.

On the same day the applicant was released from detention.

The applicant, his co-accused and the prosecutor appealed against the Olsztyn District Court’s judgment, which was upheld by the Olsztyn Regional Court on 15 February 2005.

B. Monitoring of the applicant’s correspondence

On 24 February 2005 the Court received a letter from the applicant. The envelope bore the following stamp: “Censored on 14 February 2005” (Ocenzurowano dnia 14.02.2005), together with an illegible signature and a stamp affixed by the post office in Ostróda that read: “Envelope taken out of mail box damaged and re-taped. Ostróda, 14 February 2005” (“Przesyłka wyjęta ze skrzynki w stanie uszkodzonym oklejona taśmą. Ostróda 14.02.2005”).