The right of the prisoner to correspond with his lawyer
JUDGMENT
Porowski v. Poland 21-03-2017 (no. 34458/03)
SUMMARY
Provisional detention. Duration. Right of a prisoner in correspondence. The applicant filed numerous complaints about the criminal proceedings against him. He was arrested and charged with two different procedures. He was provisionally detained for both proceedings. Relying in particular on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), the applicant complained that his imprisonment with regard to the second proceeding was unlawful and that the national courts had imposed and extended his detention without the appropriate, relevant and adequate rationale. He further argued that his correspondence with his lawyer and the Court had been checked by the authorities in breach of Article 8 (right to respect for home and correspondence). The European Court of Human Rights ruled that Article 8 had been infringed on his right to correspondence and Article 5 (3) for the duration of his detention
PROVISION
Article 8
Article 5 par. 1 and 3
PRINCIPAL FACTS
The applicant, Dariusz Porowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Otwock (Poland). He made numerous complaints relating to criminal proceedings against him.
In 2000 Mr Porowski was arrested and charged in two separate sets of proceedings. He was detained on remand in relation to both of them, by two separate measures imposed independently for each of the two cases. In relation to the first set of proceedings, after an initial conviction was quashed, Mr Porowski was tried and convicted again in November 2003 and sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. Due to his time served on remand, his imprisonment in relation to the first proceedings ended in July 2005. In relation to the second set of proceedings, the courts convicted Mr Porowski and then quashed his conviction on appeal, before convicting him again and quashing his conviction again. Mr Porowski was finally convicted again in October 2009 and sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. For most of the time prior to this final conviction, Mr Porowski was detained on remand. However, throughout the proceedings the courts held that the time he had spent in detention between July 2000 and July 2005 was relevant only to the first case. This meant that time spent in detention in relation to the second set of proceedings only started in July 2005. The lower courts therefore repeatedly extended Mr Porowski’s detention on remand, on grounds that – according to domestic legislation – could only be used if a person had been detained for less than two years.
Relying in particular on Article 5 (right to liberty and security), Mr Porowski complained that his detention on remand in respect of the second case was unlawful, as it should have been calculated
irrespective of his concurrent detention in relation to the first set of proceedings, and therefore should not have been ordered merely by the lower courts, and on the basis of grounds that were only applicable where a person had been detained for less than two years. He also complained that the domestic courts had imposed and extended his detention without proper reasoning given the context of the proceedings, and without relevant and sufficient grounds. Furthermore, Mr Porowski claimed that his correspondence with his lawyer and the Court had been monitored by the authorities, in violation of Article 8 (right to respect for the home and the correspondence).
THE DECISION OF THE COURT
No violation of Article 5 § 1 – concerning the lawfulness of the detention
Violation of Article 5 § 3 – concerning the length of the detention
Violation of Article 8
Just satisfaction: EUR 6,500 (non-pecuniary damage) and EUR 400 (costs and expenses)
