5.  The applicant was born in 1961 and lives in Katowice. 6.  The applicant, a businessman and lobbyist, lived in Warsaw and London and was a resident of Monaco. On 26 September 2004 the applicant was arrested at Krakow airport. 7.  On 28 September 2004 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had offered a bribe to a Member of Parliament, A.P., in connection with a privatisation process. The court established that only detention would secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given that the applicant did not have a permanent address in Poland. It also referred to the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant and to a risk that he would influence witnesses. 8.  The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 20 October 2004. 9.  On 21 December 2004 and 22 March and 21 June 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention. It relied on the grounds given previously. 10.  The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed. 11.  On 5 March and 23 April 2005 the applicant testified before the Parliamentary Commission of Inquiry (Komisja Śledcza) on the “PKN Orlen” case. The Commission subsequently notified the Prosecutor General that the applicant had cooperated with it. 12.  On 21 September and 21 December 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention pending the outcome of the investigation. The court referred to the extraordinary complexity of the case, which concerned charges of corruption involving the highest public officials, and reiterated that other preventive measures would not secure the applicant’s attendance at the trial. 13.  The applicant’s detention was then extended by the Court of Appeal on 8 February, 10 May, 21 June, 20 September and 6 December 2006. The court found that there were circumstances justifying the fact that the investigation in the applicant’s case had not yet been terminated by the prosecutor. On the last of these dates the court also decided that the applicant could be released on bail in the amount of 1,000,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 260,000 euros (EUR)). 14.  On 5 January 2007 the pre‑trial detention of the former MP A.P., and the applicant’s assistant, K.P., was lifted. The applicant’s appeals against all the decisions extending his detention were dismissed. His numerous applications for release were also to no avail. 15.  On 20 January 2007 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant, A.P., and K.P. The applicant was accused of several offences of corruption. The bill of indictment was over 200 pages long. The prosecutor requested that eighty‑four witnesses be heard and statements from a further forty‑two witnesses be read out. He relied on 458 pieces of evidence. 16.  On 9 February 2007 the applicant’s detention was further extended. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. 17.  On 11 April 2007 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and decided to release the applicant on bail, fixing the amount at PLN 600,000. The court established that the evidence in the case had been obtained, the bill of indictment had been lodged with the trial court and the applicant had a permanent place of residence in Poland. 18.  On 15 June 2007 the Warsaw District Court changed the order and fixed bail at PLN 500,000. The prosecutor lodged an appeal. 19.  On 17 July 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal, finding that there was no evidence that the applicant would try to influence witnesses or otherwise interfere with the proper course of the proceedings. The court also observed that the applicant had not paid the bail set by the District Court, probably because he had remained in pre‑trial detention in connection with another set of proceedings. 20.  In the meantime, on 30 April 2007, the Warsaw District Court decided that it did not have jurisdiction to try the applicant’s case, and transferred it to the Zgierz District Court. On 14 May 2007 the Warsaw District Court corrected an “obvious editorial mistake” in its decision of 30 April 2007, by indicating that the trial should be conducted before the Pabianice District Court. The applicant’s lawyer appealed against that decision, and on 17 July 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court allowed the appeal, on the ground that the designation of a trial court should not have been considered a matter of editorial revision. Finally, on 17 July 2007 the Warsaw Regional Court decided that the Pabianice District Court should hear the applicant’s case.
The trial court scheduled the first hearing for 27 September 2007, but it was cancelled. 21.  On 10 October 2007 the Pabianice District Court fixed the amount of bail for the applicant’s release at PLN 300,000 (approximately EUR 84,000). The court established that bail in this amount would secure the applicant’s attendance at the trial. The prosecutor lodged an appeal, but it was dismissed on 30 October 2007. 22.  It appears that the applicant paid the bail, and his detention with respect to this set of proceedings ended. Nevertheless, he was not released (see below). 23.  On 25 June 2012 the Pabianice District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to three years and six months’ imprisonment and a fine (II K 293/07). The judgment is not final and the applicant applied to receive a reasoned copy of the judgment with a view to lodging an appeal against it. 24.  On 8 March 2005 the applicant was charged with abetting an offence of bribery (podżeganie do przekupstwa), contrary to Article 229 taken together with Article 18 of the Criminal Code. The content of the charge was classified “top secret” (ściśle tajne) and thus the details of the charge do not appear on the reasoned decision to charge the applicant. The applicant alleged that this and subsequent charges were a reaction to his statements made before the “PKN Orlen” Parliamentary Commission (see paragraph 11 above). 25.  In January and November 2006 the applicant was charged in connection with various counts of money laundering and tax evasion (causing damage to the State Treasury in the amount of EUR 1,900). Subsequently, his wife and mother‑in‑law were charged in connection with the latter offence. The applicant’s mother‑in‑law was arrested but later released on bail. 26.  On 26 November 2006 the Katowice District Court decided to remand the applicant in custody in connection with this set of proceedings. 27.  On 8 December 2006 the charges against the applicant were further supplemented with the addition of other tax‑related offences. 28.  On 19 February and 22 June 2007 the Katowice District Court further extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention. It considered that there was a risk that the applicant would influence witnesses or tamper with the proper course of the proceedings. The court also referred to the likelihood that a heavy sentence would be imposed on the applicant. The applicant appealed against these decisions. 29.  The appeal against the decision of 19 February 2007 was firstly rejected on 18 April 2007 as lodged out of time. The applicant’s lawyers further appealed against this decision. On 9 May 2007 the Katowice Regional Court allowed that appeal and quashed the decision of 18 April 2007. On 6 June 2007 the appeal against the decision of 19 February 2007 was decided on the merits and dismissed by the Katowice Regional Court. The court disagreed that the allegations against the applicant were unfounded, and considered that extensive evidence had been gathered justifying the reasonable suspicion against the applicant (the evidence included bank documents, contracts, correspondence, and statements from witnesses and the applicant). 30.  On 18 October 2007 the State Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy) gave a decision authorising a search of the applicant’s cell and seizure of illegal items, in particular drugs and other psychotropic substances. On the same day a search of the applicant’s cell was conducted. No illegal items were found. However, the authorities seized two books containing Sudoku puzzles, which also contained notes written by the applicant. 31.  On 23 October 2007 the Katowice District Court dismissed the prosecutor’s request for a further extension of the applicant’s detention. The court decided that the applicant could be released on bail, which it set at PLN 500,000 (approximately EUR 140,000). The court referred to the lengthy imposition of the most severe preventive measure on the applicant, who should be presumed innocent, and considered that his pre‑trial detention had become a criminal sanction in violation of the principles of domestic criminal law and of international law. It also noted that the prosecution had collected by that time a huge amount of evidence against the applicant (the case file amounted to 227 volumes) and should be able to terminate the investigation. The prosecutor appealed against this decision. 32.  On 29 October 2007 the Katowice Regional Court allowed the prosecutor’s appeal and quashed the decision allowing the applicant to be released on bail. It also extended the applicant’s detention until 31 January 2008. 33.  On 28 January 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court decided to dismiss the prosecutor’s request and not to extend the applicant’s pre‑trial detention. 34.  The applicant was released on 31 January 2008. 35.  On 19 February 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal lodged by the prosecutor and decided to impose a preventive measure on the applicant, namely police supervision and a ban on leaving the country. The court considered that the total length of the applicant’s pre‑trial detention, imposed in two sets of proceedings but taken cumulatively, amounted to three years and four months, as the applicant had been arrested on 28 September 2004. The court thus dismissed the prosecutor’s allegation that only the length of the second set of the proceedings should be taken into consideration and that therefore the detention could be extended further. 36.  On 7 August 2008 the applicant was arrested again. A new charge relating to forgery of a foreign driving licence was added to the original charges against him. 37.  On 9 August 2008 the Katowice Court of Appeal decided to extend the applicant’s detention. 38.  The applicant appealed against that decision; on 10 September 2008 the Katowice Court of Appeal shortened the period by which the applicant’s detention was extended. 39.  On 25 September 2008 the Katowice Court of Appeal further extended the applicant’s detention. An appeal against this decision was dismissed on 29 October 2008. 40.  On 5 November 2008 the Katowice Court of Appeal extended his detention. The applicant appealed. 41.  On 21 January 2009 the Katowice Court of Appeal decided to release the applicant on bail of PLN 3,000,000 (approximately EUR 690,000). It appears that the applicant paid the bail. 42.  On 20 February 2009 the applicant was released from detention. 43.  Between September 2009 and March 2010 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor discontinued several sets of investigations in connection with the following charges against the applicant: owning a forged driving licence issued by British Honduras (whose name has been Belize since 1973), shortcomings in preparation of yearly reports of activity of a limited liability company, lack of care in storing ammunition for his legally owned gun so it was accessible to his wife, and passing to another person two joints of marijuana, as there was no evidence that the offences had been committed. 44.  On 8 September 2010 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor discontinued the investigation in connection with the charge against the applicant of abetting an offence of bribery contrary to Article 229 taken together with Article 18 of the Criminal Code (the charge of 8 March 2005, see paragraph 24 above). The prosecutor considered that there was no evidence that the offence had been committed. Since the materials pertaining to the charge were classified as secret, the written reasons for the decision were also considered secret and were deposited in the secret registry of the prosecutor’s office. 45.  On 21 January, 4 March and 21 July 2010, and on 21 February 2012 the Katowice Appellate Prosecutor lodged bills of indictment against the applicant. On 9 December 2011 the prosecutor discontinued the investigation as regards a number of remaining charges. 46.  The remaining part of the investigation is pending before the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor (no. Ap V Ds. 6/09/s). 47.  On 29 November 2006 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s requests for leave to consult the case file against him. The decision was upheld on 12 January 2007. In 2007 the applicant’s lawyers attempted on at least eight occasions to obtain leave to consult the case file, without success. All those refusals of permission were upheld at the appellate stage. The prosecutor considered on each occasion that the investigation was multi‑layered and complex, and that the case file included classified documents and information which, if disclosed to the accused or his lawyers, would damage the proper course of the pending investigation. 48.  On 25 January 2008 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor decided to allow the applicant and his lawyers partial access to the case file. The prosecutor scheduled consultation of the file between 5 May and 14 August 2008. 49.  On 20 November 2008 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor granted further partial access to the case file. 50.  In 2009 the applicant and his lawyers made further unsuccessful applications for access to the case file. Finally, on 19 November 2009 the prosecutor allowed them partial access to it. 51.  On 18 October 2009 the applicant lodged a complaint that his right to a trial within a reasonable time had been breached in respect of the investigation carried out by the prosecutor (no. Ap V Ds. 6/09/s), and asked for just satisfaction. He relied on the amended 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”). 52.  On 22 December 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed the complaint and awarded the applicant PLN 10,000 (which amounted to EUR 2,300 at the material time). The court considered that the investigation in the instant case started on 20 July 2004 and was still pending. Although it agreed with the prosecutor that the case was complex, it noted that there had been many delays and that many of the actions could have been carried out earlier. The court also instructed the prosecutor to intensify his activity in the case, so that the investigation could be terminated by 30 March 2010. 53.  In March 2011 the applicant lodged a second complaint under the 2004 Act complaining that the investigation (no. Ap V Ds. 6/09/s) was still pending before the prosecutor. 54.  On 27 April 2011 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. It examined the course of the investigation since 30 March 2010 and considered that the prosecutor had been very active and managed to terminate the investigation as regards many of the charges against the applicant either by lodging bills of indictment or by dropping the charges. In spite of all the efforts it had not been possible to terminate the investigation in respect of the main charge against the applicant. This failure however did not justify finding a breach of the applicant’s right to have the proceedings concluded within a reasonable time. 55.  On 10 December 2004 the applicant’s wife visited the applicant in the detention centre after being granted leave by the prosecutor. It appears that up to 5 October 2006 she visited him at least eighteen times, including twice with their older child. 56.  On 9 January 2007 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor informed the applicant’s wife that she had to seek leave to visit the applicant from two prosecutors conducting two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant, and that there was no right of appeal against the prosecutor’s decisions to refuse visiting rights. 57.  Between October 2006 and the applicant’s release on 31 January 2008 all requests by the applicant’s wife for visits were refused. In particular, the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor dismissed requests made on 8 January, 28 February, 12 March, 29 May, 25 June and 17 December 2007. The decisions contained no reasoning and no appeal lay against them. 58.  On 6 February 2007 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor informed the applicant in a letter that since his wife had been heard as a witness in the second set of proceedings against him it was not possible to grant her leave to visit the applicant. On 28 May 2007 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor informed the applicant’s wife in a letter that since 14 February 2007 she had been a suspect in one of the cases, so her requests to visit the applicant would not be allowed. 59.  On 20 February and 12 March 2007 the Katowice Appeal Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s request for leave to receive a visit from his mother. The letter of refusal provides no reasons for that decision. 60.  On 10 October 2004 the Łódź Appeal Prosecutor decided to seize the applicant’s assets. That decision was amended on 10 February 2005 in that the prosecutor decided to seize shares in the applicant’s company, L., shares in the public company S., and money deposited on his bank accounts up to the maximum amount of the fine provided by the criminal law, namely PLN 720,000 (approximately EUR 200,000). It appears that that decision was upheld by the Łódź District Court on 18 February 2005. 61.  On 1 March 2005 the Appeal Prosecutor decided to seize further assets of the applicant and considered that the maximum amount of fines that could be imposed on him for tax offences was PLN 12,000,000. It appears that this decision was amended by the Łódź District Court on 15 March 2005 in that the sum to be seized by the authorities was limited to PLN 8,015,997 (approximately EUR 2,224,000). 62.  On 27 April 2007 the court’s bailiff informed the applicant that he had seized his bank accounts by way of enforcement of the prosecutors’ decisions. 63.  In May 2007 the bailiff seized the applicant’s shares in a company D., and subsequently sold them.