BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF RABAN v. POLAND
(Application
no. 24254/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
8 January
2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Raban v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Josep
Casadevall,
Giovanni Bonello,
Kristaq
Traja,
Stanislav Pavlovschi,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana
Mijović, judges,
and Fatoş Araci, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 4 December 2007,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 24254/03) against the
Republic of Poland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Polish national, Mr Sławomir
Raban (“the applicant”), on 10 July 2003.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
6 October 2005 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible
and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the length of the
applicant's detention to the Government. Under the provisions of
Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the
merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1962 and lives in Warszawa. He is currently
serving a prison sentence in Włodawa Prison.
- On
28 June 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of several
counts of extortion.
- On
29 June 2001 the Lublin District Court remanded him in custody,
relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence
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 go into hiding (since he
did not have any permanent place of residence). The court also
stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence (up to eight years
of imprisonment) and the fact that the applicant had a criminal
record.
- Later,
several members of an organised crime group were detained and charged
in connection with the investigation against the applicant.
- Certain
witnesses were granted special status. The prosecutor called, inter
alia, two State's witnesses and several anonymous witnesses.
Several confrontations between the suspects and witnesses took place.
Several expert opinions were ordered, namely an expert opinion on
ballistics, an expert opinion as to the identification number of a
vehicle, and several psychiatric opinions regarding some of the
suspects.
- The
applicant's appeal against the detention order, his subsequent
appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his
numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to
release him were all unsuccessful.
- On
1 August 2001 the Lublin District Court decided that the applicant
should he detained in connection with another set of criminal
proceedings instituted against him by the District Prosecutor in
Lublin (case no. IX 1K 765/02).
- On
13 November 2001 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor decided to amend the
charges against the applicant. He was suspected of several counts of
extortion committed while acting in an organised criminal gang.
- On
18 September 2001 the applicant's detention was extended until 27
December 2001. The court relied on a strong suspicion that the
applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported
by evidence from witnesses and experts. Further, the court attached
importance to the grave nature of those offences. Finally, it noted
that the prolongation of the investigation was not attributable to
the prosecuting authorities, but resulted from the fact that other
suspects had been identified and arrested.
- On
3 December 2001 the Lublin District Prosecutor lodged a bill of
indictment with the Lublin District Court. The applicant was charged
with several counts of extortion which had been committed while being
a member of an organised crime group. There were twenty defendants in
the case, all charged with numerous counts of extortion committed in
an organised crime group.
- On
5 March 2002 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently
held fifty-six hearings in the first instance. On several occasions
the Lublin District Court requested other courts to hear evidence
from some of the witnesses.
- On
31 July 2002 the Public Regional Hospital informed the court that
from 16 to 17 July 2002 the applicant was in coma and was
hospitalised following a medicine overdose in a suicide attempt.
Therefore, he could not attend the hearing on 16 July 2002.
- On
2 July 2003 the court requested information from the health care unit
of the detention centre concerning health of the applicant and of
another co-accused.
- On
4 November 2003 the court decided that the co-accused be released
from detention.
- On
26 November 2003 the court decided to release three other defendants
from detention in view of the difficult situation of their families,
especially their children.
- On
3 December 2003 the Lublin Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant's
detention until 11 May 2004. It observed that the fact that the trial
had not been terminated could not be attributed to the authorities,
given the volume of evidence and the fact that some hearings had had
to be cancelled as the defendants' counsels or witnesses had not
appeared. It further considered that the applicant had been charged
with crimes for which he was liable to a sentence of imprisonment
exceeding eight years, and that the circumstances of the case
indicated that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant might
obstruct the proceedings.
- On
30 April 2004 the applicant was released from detention under police
supervision. The court relied on the fact that almost all witnesses
had been heard and thus the applicant ceased to pose a threat to the
proper conduct of the proceedings. Moreover, the applicant had
committed himself to staying in Lublin at a fixed address.
- On
25 May 2004, on 27 June, on 6 December 2004, on 20 January and on 15
March 2005 the police informed the court that the applicant had
failed to report to the police station as required by the court order
and that he had not lived at the indicated address.
- On
20 May 2005 the Lublin District Court gave judgment. The applicant
was convicted as charged and sentenced to six years' imprisonment
(case no. IX K 2252/01). The applicant appealed on 20 January
2006.
- According
to the applicant the appellate court remitted the case for
re-examination. However, he did not submit the date or the copy of
the relevant judgment.
- On
9 December 2005 the applicant was also found guilty of the offences
he had been charged with in another set of criminal proceedings
conducted by the Lublin District Court (case file no. IX K 756/02).
The applicant was sentenced to 3 year's imprisonment.
- The
applicant is presently serving a prison sentence imposed by the
judgment of the Płońsk District Court of 3 September 2004
(case file no. II K 282/03). It appears that the judgment has become
final.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the
imposition of pre-trial detention (tymczasowe aresztowanie),
the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules
governing other, so-called “preventive measures” (środki
zapobiegawcze) at the material time are stated in the Court's
judgments in the cases of Kudła v. Poland [GC],
no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; Bagiński
v. Poland, no. 37444/97, §§ 42-45, 11 October
2005; and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 2-23,
4 August 2006.
THE LAW
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention had
been excessive. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention the relevant part of which reads as follows:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with
the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be
... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending
trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
- The
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within
the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It further
notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It must
therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Period to be taken into consideration
- The
applicant's detention began on 28 June 2001, when he was arrested on
suspicion of having committed several counts of extortion. On 30
April 2004 the applicant was released from detention.
- On
20 May 2005 the Lublin District Court convicted him as charged.
Apparently, that judgment was later quashed and the case was
remitted.
- However,
as from 3 September 2004 the applicant has been serving a prison
sentence which had been imposed on him in other criminal proceedings.
As from that date he was detained “after conviction by a
competent court”, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a)
and, consequently, that period of his detention falls outside the
scope of Article 5 § 3 (cf. Kudła, cited above, §
104).
Accordingly,
the period to be taken into consideration amounts to two years and
ten months.
2. The parties' submissions
- The
Government firstly presented some statistical data, indicating that
in the years 2000-2005 the number of indictments and convictions in
cases concerning organised crime increased both in absolute terms and
in relation to other crimes. In 2004 there were 617 indictments in
such cases and 220 persons were convicted. They argued that in
organised crime cases the authorities were faced with particular
problems relating to the taking and assessment of evidence and
various logistical issues.
- The
Government submitted that the applicant's pre-trial detention had
been justified by the existence of substantial evidence of his guilt,
the nature of the offences with which he had been charged and the
severity of the anticipated penalty. They underlined that the length
of the applicant's detention should be assessed in the light of the
fact that he had acted in an organised criminal group. The risk that
the defendants might obstruct the proceedings or tamper with evidence
had been aggravated by the fact that they had been closely linked as
members of a criminal gang. Only the isolation of the members of the
group could prevent them from coordinating their testimonies or
influencing witnesses. Thus, the domestic courts had considered it
necessary to detain the applicant and other co-defendants until all
relevant witnesses had been questioned.
- The
Government asserted that the necessity of the applicant's continued
detention had been thoroughly examined by the courts which on each
occasion had given sufficient reasons for their decisions.
Furthermore, the applicant's case had been extremely complex. Lastly,
they submitted that the authorities had displayed special diligence
in the conduct of the proceedings.
- The
applicant argued that the length of his detention had been
unreasonable.
3. The Court's assessment
(a) General principles
- The
Court recalls that the general principles regarding the right “to
trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as
guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention were stated in a
number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities,
Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110
et seq, ECHR 2000 XI; and McKay v. the United Kingdom
[GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-..., with further
references).
(b) Application of the above principles in
the present case
- The
Court observes that the judicial authorities, in addition to the
reasonable suspicion against the applicant, relied principally on
three grounds, namely (1) the serious nature of the charges against
him, (2) the severity of the penalty to which he was liable and (3)
the risk of obstruction of the proceedings. The domestic courts also
referred to the obstructive behaviour of the defendants and their
counsel which were aimed at delaying trial. Lastly, they had regard
to the complexity of the case owing to the nature of the charges, the
number of defendants and volume of evidence to be heard.
- The Court notes that the applicant was charged with
several counts of extortion which he
had committed in relapse into crime and acting in an organised
criminal group. In the Court's view, the fact that the
case concerned a member of such a criminal group should be taken into
account in assessing compliance with Article 5 § 3 (see Bąk
v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 57, ECHR 2007-...
(extracts)).
- The
Court accepts that the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had
committed the serious offences he was charged with could initially
warrant his detention. In addition, it considers that the authorities
were faced with the difficult task of determining the facts and the
degree of alleged responsibility of each of the defendants, who had
been charged with acting in an organised crime group. In these
circumstances, the Court also accepts that the need to obtain
voluminous evidence from many sources, coupled with the fact that in
the course of the investigation new suspects had been identified,
constituted relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicant's
detention at the early stages of the trial.
- However,
with the passage of time those grounds inevitably became less and
less relevant. The Court must then establish whether the other
grounds adduced by the judicial authorities were “relevant”
and “sufficient” (see, Kudła cited above, §
111).
- According
to the authorities, the likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed
on the applicant created a presumption that the applicant would
obstruct the proceedings. However, the Court would reiterate that,
while the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the
assessment of the risk of absconding or re-offending, the gravity of
the charges cannot by itself justify long periods of detention on
remand (see, for instance, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96,
§§ 80-81, 26 July 2001).
- Furthermore,
the judicial authorities relied on the fact that the applicant had
been charged with being a member of an organised crime group. In this
regard, the Court reiterates that the existence of a general risk
flowing from the organised nature of the alleged criminal activities
of the applicant may be accepted as the basis for his detention at
the initial stages of the proceedings (see Górski v.
Poland, no. 28904/02, § 58, 4 October 2005)
and in some circumstances also for subsequent extensions of the
detention (see Celejewski, cited above, § 37). It is also
accepted that in such cases, involving numerous accused, the process
of gathering and hearing evidence is often a difficult task.
Moreover, the Court considers that in cases such as the present
concerning organised crime groups, the risk that a detainee, if
released, might bring pressure to bear on witnesses or other
co accused, or otherwise obstruct the proceedings, is by the
nature of things often particularly high. In this connection the
Court notes that the applicant attempted to commit suicide and that
the domestic courts took into consideration the defendants' health
and family situation when taking decision on the continuation of
their detention (see paragraphs 15-18 above).
- The Court observes that the applicant was released
from detention and placed under police supervision as soon as the
authorities were persuaded that such a preventive measure would
suffice (see paragraph 20 above). The Court also notes that the
applicant failed to respect the conditions of his release (see
paragraph 21 above).
- The
foregoing considerations are sufficient for the Court to conclude
that the grounds given for the applicant's pre-trial detention were
“relevant” and “sufficient” to justify
holding him in custody for the entire relevant period.
- It
therefore remains to be ascertained whether the national authorities
displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the
proceedings required under Article 5 § 3 (see, Mc
Kay, cited above, § 44). In this regard, the Court observes
that the proceedings were of considerable complexity, regard being
had to the number of defendants, the extensive evidentiary
proceedings and the implementation of special measures required in
cases concerning organised crime. Nevertheless, the hearings in the
applicant's case were held regularly and at short intervals. The
Court therefore concludes that the national authorities displayed
special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings. The length of
the investigation and of the trial was justified by the exceptional
complexity of the case. It should not be overlooked that, while an
accused person in detention is entitled to have his case given
priority and conducted with particular expedition, this must not
stand in the way of the efforts of the judges to clarify fully the
facts in issue, to provide both the defence and the prosecution with
all necessary facilities for putting forward their evidence and
stating their case and to give judgment only after careful reflection
on whether the offences were in fact committed and on the sentence to
be imposed.
- Having
regard to the foregoing, the Court finds that there has been no
violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the remainder of the application
admissible;
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 January 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President
