CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 26 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 15 April 2024   FIRST SECTION Application no. 54541/22 Weronika KLEMBA against Poland lodged on 20 November 2022 communicated on 26 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns deprivation of liberty of the applicant, an activist of the Club of Catholic Intelligentsia ( Klub Inteligencji Katolickiej) (KIK), offering humanitarian aid to migrants who crossed the Polish-Belarusian border. The events complained of took place outside the closed area established after the outbreak of the migration crisis to which nobody, including journalists or activists from charity organisations, had access. The applicant was arrested under the suspicion of illegally helping migrants cross the border. She appealed against her arrest to the court but in vain. She was released about 48 hours later when the District Court refused to detain her on remand. The applicant complains Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that her arrest was arbitrary, unlawful, disproportionate and unnecessary in the circumstances, since shortly after her arrest it should have been clear to the police officers that there was no suspicion that she had committed any offence. She also complains that she was not allowed to contact her lawyer in due time and that during her questioning she was handcuffed without any apparent reason. She further complains that the time of her arrest indicated on the decision is incorrect because she was arrested several hours earlier. She further raises a complaint under Article   5 §   4 of the Convention about the quality of the procedure by which she challenged her arrest, in particular that the court, examining her appeal against the arrest by way of a very succinct reasoning, did not address her concrete and numerous complaints. Instead, in general terms and basing its opinion on the reasonable suspicion that she might have committed an offence, it found that the arrest had been necessary, lawful and correct ( zasadne, legalne i prawidłowe ). QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant’s detention compatible with Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”. Reference is made to the facts that initially the applicant was refused contact with her lawyer and that she was handcuffed during her questioning on 26   March 2022. 2.     Did the suspicion against the applicant that she had committed an offence exist during the whole time of her deprivation of liberty, until her release? 3.     At what time did the applicant’s detention start on 25 March 2022? Reference is made to the indication on the decision of her arrest that she was arrested at 5.10 p.m. whereas she was stopped for control at 2.40 p.m. after which time she was under the control of the police officers. 4.     Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of her detention in conformity with Article   5   §   4 of the Convention? Reference is made to the succinct reasoning of the decision of the Sokółka District Court of 20 July 2022 (II Kp 93/22) which apparently did not address all the arguments raised in the applicant’s appeal.