4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Częstochowa. 5.  On 26 September 2004 the applicant was arrested by the police. 6.  On 28 September 2004 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had offered a bribe to a Member of Parliament, Mr A.P. The applicant was charged together with Mr M.D., a well‑known businessman and lobbyist and his business partner. Mr M.D.’s case received wide media coverage and aroused a great deal of political interest. The court established that his detention was essential to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. It also referred to the likelihood that a severe sentence might be imposed on the applicant and to the risk that he would influence witnesses. 7.  The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on an unspecified date. 8.  On 21 December 2004 and 22 March and 21 June 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention. It relied on the grounds previously relied on. 9.  The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed. 10.  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 high‑ranking public officials, and reiterated that other preventive measures would not secure the applicant’s attendance at his trial. 11.  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 above‑mentioned date the court also decided that the applicant could be released on bail in the amount of 300,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 76,000 euros (EUR)). 12.  The applicant’s appeals against all the decisions to extend his detention were dismissed. His numerous applications for release were also to no avail. 13.  On 5 January 2007 the applicant paid the bail and his pre‑trial detention was lifted. 14.  On 20 January 2007 the Katowice Appeals Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant, Mr M.D. and Mr A.P. 15.  The trial court scheduled the first hearing for 27 September 2007, but it was cancelled. 16.  On 25 June 2012 the Pabianice District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to two years and ten 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. 17.  It appears that on 20 July 2004 the prosecutor initiated a new investigation against the applicant and other co‑accused including Mr. M.D. 18.  On 8 March 2005 the charges against the applicant were supplemented with the addition of a charge of money laundering contrary to Article 229 of the Criminal Code. The investigation was conducted within the above‑described proceedings until 14 November 2005. Subsequently, the charge under Article 229 of the Code was severed, to be dealt with in another set of proceedings. 19.  The charges were supplemented in April and September 2007. In January 2008 the charges against the applicant were further supplemented with the addition of a charge of forgery contrary to Article 271 of the Criminal Code. 20.  On 14 January 2008 the applicant was arrested by the police and the prosecutor applied to the court with a motion to impose pre‑trial detention on the applicant in this set of proceedings. 21.  On 15 January 2008 the Katowice District Court decided to allow the prosecutor’s request and remanded the applicant in custody. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and on the risk that a severe sentence would be imposed on him. The court however considered, contrary to the prosecutor’s assessment, that there was no risk that the applicant would tamper with the proper course of the proceedings. It noted that the proceedings in the instant case had been pending for a long time and the applicant, while at liberty, had not made any attempt to interfere with their proper course. The court therefore considered that other preventive measures could secure the applicant’s attendance at his trial and set bail in the amount of PLN 100,000. 22.  The applicant’s family attempted to pay the bail. However, the enforcement of the decision of 15 January 2008 was stayed because the prosecutor had lodged an appeal against it. 23.  It appears that the court allowed the appeal on 5 March 2008 and extended the applicant’s detention. 24.  On 11 April 2008 the Warsaw Regional Court dismissed the prosecutor’s motion to further extend the applicant’s detention and decided to place him under police supervision and prohibit him from leaving the country. The court also criticised the prosecutor in that he had refused to indicate what investigative measures he had been planning to take in the ongoing investigation. Relying on the case‑law of the Strasbourg Court the Warsaw Regional Court considered that concealing planned actions from the defence constituted a breach of defence rights in violation of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention. 25.  On 15 April 2008 the applicant was released from detention. 26.  The prosecutor lodged an appeal against the decision. 27.  On 27 May 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed the prosecutor’s appeal and extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention. The court disagreed with the lower court’s assessment and considered that the prosecutor had communicated to the applicant sufficiently justified reasons for extending his pre‑trial detention to comply with the Convention standards. The court reiterated that the prosecutor’s motions had not been confidential and had been ultimately transmitted to the applicant and his lawyers. At the same time both Polish law and the Convention case‑law allowed for some information to be withheld from the applicant in order to secure the efficient conduct of the investigation. 28.  On 28 May 2008 the applicant returned to the detention centre. 29.  On 25 February 2009 the Katowice Court of Appeal decided to further extend the applicant’s pre‑trial detention until 31 May 2009. At the same time the court decided that the applicant could be released on bail of PLN 300,000 (approx. EUR 70,000). The court underlined that the risk that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant should be assessed taking into account the circumstances of the case i.e. the amount of evidence that had been collected, the length of detention so far and the possibility to apply other measures to secure the applicant’s attendance at his trial. 30.  It appears that the applicant paid the bail. He was released from pre‑trial detention on 8 April 2009. 31.  On 24 May 2011 the Katowice Appellate Prosecutor discontinued the investigation against the applicant relating to tax offences finding that no offence had been committed. 32.  On 22 June 2011 and on 21 February 2012 the Katowice Appellate Prosecutor lodged bills of indictment against the applicant on certain tax fraud- related charges. 33.  The remaining part of the investigation against the applicant and other co‑accused is pending before the Katowice Appeals Prosecutor (no. Ap V Ds. 6/09/s). On 22 December 2011 the prosecutor stayed the investigation in this case. 34.  On 22 December 2009 the Warsaw Court of Appeal allowed the applicant’s complaint and found 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). It awarded the applicant PLN 10,000 (which amounted to EUR 2,300 at the material time) in compensation. The applicant 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”). 35.  The court noted that the investigation in the instant case had started on 20 July 2004 and was still pending. The investigation was extended on several occasions as new charges had been brought against the applicant and six co‑accused. The court considered that many unrelated charges, mostly concerning one co‑accused, Mr M.D., had been joined to the investigation against the applicant although they had not concerned his case. Moreover, it criticised the prosecutor’s approach of repeatedly supplementing the investigation by adding new unrelated charges against the applicant which had clearly caused protraction of the main investigation against him. 36.  The court agreed with the prosecutor that the case was complex. However, it noted that there had been many delays and that many of the actions could have been carried out earlier. For instance, as regards one charge against Mr M.D., witnesses were heard in July 2009, three years after the relevant events had been disclosed by the prosecutor. Moreover, this charge was totally unrelated to the present investigation against the applicant and should have been dealt with in another set of proceedings. A piece of evidence, a telephone, was examined one year after it had been seized by the prosecuting authorities. The court noted other delays in the examination of a piece of evidence disclosed in August 2008 which resulted in the preparation of an expert opinion only in March 2009. The Warsaw Court of Appeal also observed that while in 2005 the applicant had often been heard by the prosecutor, later, particularly between 2006 and 2008, the prosecutor heard the applicant at much longer intervals. 37.  The court also noted many periods of inactivity on the part of the prosecutor in connection with his multiple requests for international legal assistance. For instance, delays occurred between July 2008 and January 2009 when the prosecutor did not react to a reply to his request for legal assistance from Latvia. What is more, this request had no relevance to the investigation against the applicant although it influenced its length. The court considered that many of those requests for legal assistance had related not to the charges that had already been brought against the applicant or the co‑accused but to the investigation of new circumstances which might result in new charges being laid against them in future. 38.  The court therefore considered that the complexity of the case could not justify the fact that the investigation has been pending for five years. Nor did the applicant contribute to the length of the proceedings. 39.  The court finally instructed the prosecutor to intensify his activity in the case, so that the investigation could be terminated by 30 March 2010. However, the prosecutor did not manage to close the investigation by that date and the proceedings relating to the main charge are still pending (see paragraph 33 above). 40.  The Government submitted that at the pre‑trial stage of the first set of proceedings the applicant was granted access to the case file on four occasions in 2005 and 2006 and in January 2007. At the judicial stage the applicant consulted his file in July and August 2008. However, in September 2006 the prosecutor refused to allow the applicant access to some parts of the file. 41.  As regards the second set of proceedings the Government acknowledged that the applicant was temporarily refused access to the case file by the prosecutor’s decisions of 6 December 2006, 31 August 2007 and 29 January 2008. However, the applicant was subsequently allowed to consult the file. 42.  The applicant did not contest the Government’s submissions. He submitted copies of the prosecutor’s decisions of 6 December 2006 and 31 August 2007 refusing the applicant and his lawyers access to the case file. The applicant appealed against both decisions; however an appellate prosecutor dismissed them. The applicant also provided a copy of the decision of 29 January 2008, notified to the applicant’s lawyer on 2 February 2008, in which the prosecutor refused him access to the file and to transmit to him a reasoned copy of the prosecutor’s motion to impose detention on remand on the applicant.
The applicant also provided copies of the prosecutor’s reasoned motions of 15 January 2008 to impose detention on remand on him and of 28 March 2008 to extend his detention. 43.  During the applicant’s detention his wife and three children lodged multiple requests for permission to visit him in the detention centre. On 4 July 2008 the Katowice Appeals Prosecutor dismissed the request of his wife and two sons for leave to visit the applicant. The decision contained no reasons. 44.  The applicant submitted that while he had been detained on remand certain doctors recommended that he undergo surgery; however, an operation could not be carried out in the detention centre. Moreover, he was placed in the same cell with a detainee who had been charged with murder who was awaiting transfer to a medical wing.