6.  The applicant is a Polish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Będzin. 7.  The parties gave partly different descriptions of certain facts of the case concerning the conditions of the applicant’s detention and the “dangerous detainee” regime (see paragraphs 54-57 and 68-75 below). The remaining facts were not in dispute. 8.  On 27 December 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of robbery. 9.  On 29 December 2000 the Sosnowiec District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed robbery, theft and had caused bodily harm, acting with two other persons. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. In that respect, it was noted that the applicant had threatened the victims in order to stop them from informing the police of the offences allegedly committed and from testifying against him. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence. 10.  In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on 31 January and 19 March 2001. In their detention decisions, the courts repeatedly relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. 11.  On 13 June 2001 the Sosnowiec District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Sosnowiec District Court. The applicant, together with two co-accused, was charged with robbery, two counts of theft and causing bodily harm. 12.  During the court proceedings the authorities further extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on 26 June and 6 December 2001, 8 March, 26 July, 22 November and 18 December 2002 and again on 29 January 2003. The courts repeated the grounds previously given for his continued detention. 13.  On 28 February 2003 the Sosnowiec District Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment. 14.  The applicant appealed. He was held in detention pending appeal for the subsequent months. 15.  On 23 April 2004 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) heard the applicant’s appeal. It quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. 16.  The courts further extended the applicant’s detention on 10 May, 23 July, 27 September and 11 October 2004, relying on the initial grounds. 17.  On 22 November 2004 the District Court decided that the applicant’s detention should be replaced by police supervision (dozór policji) but he was not released and remained in custody under a detention order given in the second set of criminal proceedings against him (see paragraph 23 below). 18.  On 27 January 2006 the Sosnowiec District Court again convicted the applicant as charged but mitigated the sentence to 5 years’ imprisonment. The period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 27 December 2000 to 23 November 2004 was deducted from the sentence. 19.  On 26 October 2006 the Katowice Regional Court upheld the first‑instance judgment. 20.  From 7 December 2006 to 10 January 2008 the applicant served the prison sentence following his conviction of 27 January 2006. 21.  On 26 April 2004 the applicant was charged with robbery and battery committed in an organised criminal group. 22.  On 28 April 2004 the Katowice District Court remanded the applicant in custody for three months relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence by inducing other co-accused or witnesses to give false testimony. In this context the court referred to the fact that the applicant was suspected of serious offences committed in an organised criminal group.
Later, several other members of the same criminal group were detained and charged in the investigation against the applicant. 23.  The applicant’s appeal against the detention order was unsuccessful, as were his further appeals against decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him. 24.  On 27 September 2004 the Katowice District Court extended the applicant’s detention to 30 December 2004. It repeated the grounds that had previously been given for the applicant’s detention. 25.  On 18 November 2004 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Częstochowa Regional Court. The applicant was charged with extortion and causing bodily harm. The bill of indictment comprised numerous charges brought against 15 accused. 26.  On 9 June 2005 the Częstochowa Regional Court held the first hearing. It subsequently scheduled some 60 hearings in the case.
During the court proceedings the Częstochowa Regional Court further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on several occasions, namely on 21 December 2004 (until 30 June 2005), on 23 June 2005 (until 31 December 2005) and on 14 December 2005 (until 27 May 2006). It repeated the grounds that had previously been given for the applicant’s continued detention. In particular, the court referred to the fact that the applicant was suspected of committing offences in an organised criminal group which involved 15 co-accused and 47 charges. 27.  Because the length of the applicant’s detention was about to reach the statutory two-year time‑limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Częstochowa Regional Court applied to the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), asking for the applicant’s detention to be extended beyond that term. The Katowice Court of Appeal extended his detention on 19 April 2006 (until 31 October 2006), 11 October 2006 (until 28 February 2007), 22 February 2007 (until 30 June 2007), 20 June 2007 (until 30 November 2007) and 28 November 2007 (until 31 January 2008). The court referred in particular to the need to obtain evidence from several further witnesses. The Court confirmed that the hearings were held at regular intervals, however the case was very complex. 28.  On 10 January 2008 the Częstochowa Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed. He remained detained pending appellate proceedings. 29.  On 15 January 2009 the Katowice Court of Appeal quashed the first‑instance judgment in respect of the applicant and the few other co‑accused and in this part remitted the case for retrial. On the same date the court also decided to lift the applicant’s detention but he still remained detained in the third set of criminal proceedings against him (see paragraph 42 below). 30.  On 10 March, 14 April, 12 May and 19 May 2010 the Częstochowa Regional Court held hearings. 31.  It would appear that the proceedings were terminated at a later, unknown date. 32.  On 31 March 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Katowice Court of Appeal under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”). 33.  On 25 May 2010 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint. It considered that the proceedings before the trial court had been conducted with the requisite speed. In particular, the court observed that the hearings had been held frequently, at regular intervals and only a few of them had been adjourned due to reasons not imputable to the trial court. 34.  On 15 May 2007 the Katowice-Wschód District Court remanded the applicant in custody relying on a reasonable suspicion that he had committed several offences of extortion while acting in an organised criminal group. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. The court also stressed the likelihood of a lengthy prison sentence being imposed on him and the complexity of the case. 35.  The Katowice-Wschód District Court further extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention on several occasions, namely on 10 August 2007 (until 31 October 2007), 25 October 2007 (until 31 January 2008), 25 January 2008 (until 31 March 2008) and 26 March 2008 (until 30 June 2008). It repeated the original grounds given to justify for the applicant’s detention.
The applicant’s appeal against the detention order and his further appeals against the above decisions extending his detention were unsuccessful. 36.  On 25 June 2008 the Katowice-Wschód District Court extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to 30 September 2008. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 37.  On 30 June 2008 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Katowice Regional Court. The applicant was charged with extortion and endangering other persons. 38.  On 23 July 2008 the Katowice Regional Court quashed the decision of Katowice-Wschód District Court of 25 June 2008. It held that the decision to extend the applicant’s pre-trial detention beyond the period of one year should be taken by a regional court. The applicant remained detained in the second set of criminal proceedings (see paragraph 28 above). 39.  On 26 September 2008 the Katowice Regional Court remanded the applicant in custody relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he was charged. It also considered that keeping him in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. It further noted that the applicant was detained in another set of criminal proceedings against him in which he had been sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against the detention order. 40.  On 5 November 2008 the Katowice Court of Appeal quashed the order. It considered that the Katowice Regional Court had failed to give relevant reasons for the prolongation of the applicant’s detention. The applicant was still detained in the second set of criminal proceedings (see paragraph 28 above). 41.  On 24 November 2008 the Katowice Regional Court again remanded the applicant in custody. It held that the evidence which had been gathered in the case, in particular the testimonies of other suspects, showed that there was a sufficient probability that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. It attached importance to the likelihood of a severe prison sentence being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or would otherwise obstruct the proceedings. The latter risk was considered of the utmost importance in the light of the fact that the case involved a large number of alleged accomplices. 42.  On 19 February 2009 the Katowice Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 24 May 2009. The applicant appealed. 43.  On 1 April 2009 the Katowice Court of Appeal quashed the contested decision. It held that the impugned decision was given by a single judge whereas it should have been taken by a panel composed of one judge and two lay judges.
On the same date the Katowice Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention to 24 May 2009. On 18 May 2009 it further extended the applicant’s detention to 6 August 2009. It referred to the severity of the anticipated penalty, the risk that the applicant would attempt to induce witnesses, in particular as he was charged with acting in an organised criminal group and the complexity of the case. 44.  On 29 July 2009 and 4 November 2009 the Katowice Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention to 15 November 2009 and 31 March 2010 respectively. In its decisions the court underlined the complexity of the case, the fact that it involved thirteen co-accused and that evidence from 48 witnesses was to be obtained. It further noted the severity of the penalty to which the applicant was liable. Having regard to the organised character of the alleged criminal activities, it also held that the applicant’s detention was necessary in order to prevent the applicant from interfering with the proceedings. 45.  On 30 March 2010 the applicant was released from custody under police supervision. 46.  The applicant submitted to the Court an envelope of the Ombudsman’s (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich) letter of 6 July 2004, addressed to him and bearing a stamp “censored on...”. Another stamp indicated that the letter was received at Katowice Remand Centre on 9 July 2004. 47.  On 30 July 2004 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about the censorship of his correspondence with the Ombudsman on the grounds that this measure had been applied in accordance with law, i.e. the relevant provisions of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences. 48.  On 9 August 2004 the Katowice Regional Prosecutor, in response to the applicant’s complaints that his letters had been delayed or intercepted, informed him that his correspondence was transmitted to him “immediately after its censorship”. 49.  On 28 April 2008 the applicant submitted an envelope of the Court Registry’s letter of 11 January 2008 bearing a stamp “censored on...”. A postmark indicated that the letter was delivered to an unspecified post office in Częstochowa on 17 January 2008. 50.  On 27 May 2004 the Katowice Remand Centre Penitentiary Commission (Komisja Penitencjarna) classified the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. It considered that this was necessary given that he was charged with numerous offences committed as a member of an organised criminal group. The commission also referred to the high degree of demoralisation of the applicant. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against this decision. 51.  Every three months the commission reviewed, and upheld, its decision classifying the applicant as a “dangerous detainee”. The commission underlined that the initial grounds for imposing the special confinement measure were still valid. In its decision of 23 February 2005 it also pointed to the fact that the applicant used threats and intimidation to try to compel other detainees to go on hunger strike and to ignore the orders of the remand centre’s staff. The applicant’s appeals against these decisions were dismissed as ill-founded. 52.  As a “dangerous detainee”, the applicant was subjected to a body search every time he entered or left his cell which meant that he had to strip naked in front of two prison guards at least twice a day. The body search was performed in a separate room, which was monitored and its recording was viewable in a duty room. Whenever the applicant was outside his cell, including his appearances at court hearings, he wore the so-called “joined shackles” (kajdany zespolone) on his hands and feet. In addition, his cell, including the sanitary corner was monitored via CCTV. 53.  On 15 November 2005 the commission lifted the “dangerous detainee” status in the applicant’s respect. 54.  The applicant submitted that on several occasions his body search was monitored by a female prison officer. 55.  The Government claimed that a body search was conducted exclusively by the male prison staff and the presence of persons of the opposite sex was never permitted. 56.  The applicant further claimed that whenever outside his cell he had to wear the “joined shackles” on his hands and feet. 57.  The Government argued that the applicant had not been obliged to wear the joined shackles while moving around his prison ward. 58.  On 27 December 2000 the applicant was committed to Sosnowiec Remand Centre. He remained there until 18 March 2002. Subsequently, until his release on 30 March 2010, (see paragraph 46 above) he was held in several detention facilities, including Strzelce Opolskie Prison (from 18 March 2002 to 3 February 2004), Katowice Remand Centre (from 3 February 2004 to 1 June 2006 and then for an unspecified period from May 2009 until his release on 30 March 2010), Częstochowa Remand Centre (from 1 June 2006 to 24 January 2008), Bytom Remand Centre (24 January 2008 to January 2009) and Wojkowice Prison (unspecified dates in January 2009 until May 2009). Except for the period from 27 May 2004 to 15 November 2005, when the applicant was subjected to the “dangerous detainee” regime, he was detained under the ordinary prison regime in multi-occupancy cells.
(i)  Sosnowiec Remand Centre 59.  The inmates had been provided with toothpaste, soap and other basic hygiene products but their quality had been very poor. 60.  The applicant acknowledged that the cells had been equipped adequately to ensure that every inmate had his own place to sleep, eat and store his food or other items.
(ii)  Katowice Remand Centre 61.  In each cell to which the applicant was allocated there was a separate, closed toilet and the cells had been adequately equipped with furniture. The applicant was provided with the necessary hygiene products. Hot meals were distributed directly to the cells. The bed linen was changed every 2 weeks. The applicant was entitled to a shower once a week. He had access to the prison library.
(iii)  Częstochowa Remand Centre 62.  The cells in which the applicant was held were adequately equipped with furniture. The applicant was provided with the necessary hygiene products. The bed linen was changed every 2 weeks. The applicant was entitled to a shower once a week. He had access to the prison library.
(b)  The applicant’s complaints to penitentiary authorities and his civil actions 63.  The applicant lodged several complaints about the conditions of his detention with the penitentiary authorities. All of them were dismissed as ill‑founded. 64.  On 22 December 2009 the applicant lodged a civil action against the State Treasury statio fisci Sosnowiec Remand Centre for the infringement of his personal rights on account of overcrowding and the degrading conditions of his detention. The applicant did not inform the Court of the outcome of the proceedings. 65.  On 23 December 2009 the applicant lodged a similar civil action against the State Treasury statio fisci Katowice Remand Centre for the infringement of his personal rights on account of overcrowding and the degrading conditions of his detention. On 31 March 2010 the Katowice Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant’s appealed. On 30 September 2010 the Katowice Court of Appeal rejected his appeal on formal grounds. 66.  On 5 January 2010 the applicant lodged yet another civil action against the State Treasury statio fisci Częstochowa Remand Centre for the infringement of his personal rights on account of overcrowding and degrading conditions of his detention. On 5 August 2010 the Częstochowa Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court established that between 1 June 2006 and 22 January 2007 the applicant was assigned to cell no. 40 where the space available was 1.7 m² per person. Between 23 January 2007 and 24 January 2008 the applicant was placed in cell no. 52, where the space available was 2.1m². However, the court considered that the applicant had failed to provide the names of inmates sharing his cells. The applicant failed to inform the Court whether he had lodged an appeal against this judgment. 67.  In his letter of 28 September 2011 the applicant stated generally: “all my civil actions were rejected and I was ordered to pay costs of legal representation.” 68.  The applicant submitted that throughout the entire period of his detention he was held in overcrowded cells. Despite his numerous requests, he was not allowed to work in prison.
(b)  The Government 69.  As regards the general conditions of the applicant’s detention, the applicant was held in adequately equipped cells, with enough private space for every inmate. He was provided with the necessary cosmetics and other hygiene products. He had been given the possibility of a daily walk and could participate in various cultural and indoor recreation activities in prison. 70.  As regards overcrowding, the Government supplied the following information concerning the applicant’s detention in Sosnowiec Remand Centre, Bytom Remand Centre, Wojkowice Prison and Katowice Remand Centre. 71.  In Sosnowiec Remand Centre decisions reducing the minimum statutory space of 3 m2 in respect of the applicant were given on 8 June, 8 August, 14 September, 8 October and 19 November 2001, then on 15 January, 22 February, 3 April, 28 May, 27 June, 28 August, 17 October, 14 November 2002 and 24 January 2003. However, the Government submitted that since the authorities of Sosnowiec Remand Centre had not kept any record of persons allocated to particular cells, it was impossible to determine the exact number of inmates in the applicant’s cells during his detention. 72.  In Bytom Remand Centre the applicant was detained in overcrowded cells from 24 January to 13 February 2008, on 29 February 2008 and from 21 to 25 March 2008. 73.  In Wojkowice Prison the applicant was held in overcrowded cells on 5 January 2009, from 20 January to 8 February 2009, on 19 February 2009 and from 7 to 11 March 2009. 74.  In Katowice Remand Centre the applicant was held in overcrowded cells from 23 October to 5 November 2009. The Government submitted that since the prison authorities had not kept any record of persons allocated to particular cells, it was impossible to determine the exact number of inmates in the applicant’s cells during his detention. 75.  The applicant submitted that throughout his detention in the Czestochowa Remand Centre he had been held in overcrowded cells. The Government replied that since the prison authorities had not kept any record of persons allocated to particular cells, it was impossible to determine the exact number of inmates in the applicant’s cells during his detention.