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 WIERZBA v. POLAND
(Application
no. 20315/04)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
13
November 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 Wierzba v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi
Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 21 October 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 20315/04) 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
Wierzba (“the applicant”), on 17 May 2004.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
4 May 2006 the Court
declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaints concerning the excessive length of the
applicant's detention and the length of criminal proceedings to the
Government. It also decided to rule on the admissibility and merits
of the application at the same time (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1980 and lives in Gdańsk.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant and his
detention on remand
- On
16 April 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having
committed robbery.
- On
17 April 2002 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy)
remanded him in custody until 16 July 2002 on reasonable suspicion
that he had committed robbery and had attempted to escape.
The court also considered that keeping the applicant in
detention was justified by the existence of strong and substantial
evidence, in particular testimonies of a victim and witnesses. It
also gave as a ground for detention the severity of the likely
sentence. Further, the court considered that, given the risk that the
applicant might tamper with evidence, in particular collude with
other co accused, keeping him in detention was necessary to
secure the proper conduct of the investigation.
- In
the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was
extended on four occasions. The relevant decisions were given by the
Gdańsk District Court on 15 July and 15 October 2002, and later
on 15 January and 10 April 2003.
- In
all their detention decisions the authorities relied on the
reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence
with which he had been charged and on the risk that he might go into
hiding. As regards the latter, the court stressed that the applicant
had already attempted to escape.
- On
25 March 2003 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk
District Court. The bill of indictment concerned five defendants and,
in all, twelve charges were brought against them. The prosecution
asked the court to hear evidence from around forty witnesses.
Further, the bill of indictment included fifty items of evidence to
be produced at the hearing.
- On
5 June 2003 the trial court held the first hearing. It subsequently
scheduled sixteen hearings in the case. Four of them were cancelled
for various reasons.
- In
particular, it appears that no hearing took place between
14 August 2003 and 15 January 2004. Hearings scheduled for
9 October and 11 December 2003 were cancelled due to,
among other things, the failure to bring the applicant to trial from
prison, and the fact that a hearing scheduled for 6 November 2003
had to be cancelled because a trial judge was on mission.
- In
the course of the trial, the court ordered several expert opinions.
- During
the proceedings the applicant's detention was extended on several
occasions. At a hearing held on 9 October 2003 the Gdańsk
District Court extended the applicant's detention until
15 January 2004. On 15 January 2004 the court
ordered that the term should be prolonged until 15 March 2004.
On 11 March 2004 it ordered that the applicant be kept in custody
until 15 April 2004. Since on 16 April 2004 the applicant's
detention had reached the statutory time-limit of two years laid down
in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks
postępowania karnego), further extension of his detention
was ordered by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd
Apelacyjny). On 23 March 2004 it extended his detention
until 30 June 2004. The next decision was given by the Gdańsk
Court of Appeal on 29 June 2004, when it extended his detention until
15 August 2004.
- In
all those decisions the courts stated that the grounds originally
given for the applicant's detention were still valid.
- In
the course of the investigation and the court proceedings the
applicant made numerous, but unsuccessful, applications for release
and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release
him and against decisions extending his detention.
- On
28 July 2004 the Gdańsk District Court convicted the applicant
as charged and sentenced him to four years' imprisonment. The
applicant appealed. His detention was subsequently extended on
several occasions.
- The
appellate hearings scheduled for 12 October and 12 December 2005
and 2 February 2006 were cancelled for various reasons,
such as illness or absence of defence lawyers, and the need to obtain
evidence.
- The
first-instance judgment was upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court
(Sąd Okręgowy) on 11 July 2007.
- In
the meantime, between 3 October 2002 and 5 January 2005
the applicant served prison sentences which had been imposed on him
in other criminal proceedings.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
15 December 2004 the applicant lodged a complaint under section
5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the
right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na
naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu
sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004
Act”).
He
sought a ruling declaring that the length of the proceedings before
the Gdańsk District Court had been excessive and an award of
just satisfaction in the amount of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).
- On
11 February 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the
applicant's complaint. Since the first-instance judgment in the case
had been given before the 2004 Act came into force, the Gdańsk
Regional Court examined only the conduct of the appellate proceedings
and found no delays for which the relevant court could be held
responsible.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Detention on remand
- The
relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of
detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for
its extension, release from detention and rules governing other
“preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze)
are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of Gołek v.
Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006, and
Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4
August 2006.
B. Remedies against unreasonable length of proceedings
- The
relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the
excessive length of judicial proceedings are stated in the Court's
decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland no.
15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V; Ratajczyk v.
Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII; and the judgment in
the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§
34-46, ECHR 2005-V.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of his detention on remand had
been unreasonable. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention,
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. The Government considered that
the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention satisfied the
requirements of Article 5 § 3. The Government
submitted that his pre-trial detention was duly justified and that
during the entire period the authorities had given relevant and
sufficient reasons for prolonging it. Moreover, they maintained that
the applicant had been serving at the relevant time several prison
sentences resulting from his previous convictions.
- The
Court first notes that the applicant had been detained on remand on
16 April 2002 and that the first-instance judgment was
given on 28 July 2004.
However,
according to the documents submitted by the Government, between
3 October 2002 and 5 January 2005 the applicant
was serving three sentences of imprisonment resulting from his
previous convictions by the Kościerzyna District Court (cases
no. II K 155/01; II K 80/02; II K 12/04). This period should be
deducted from the overall period of the applicant's detention (see
Wemhoff v. Germany, judgment of 27 June 1968, Series A no. 7,
pp. 23-24, § 9 and Czarnecki v. Poland, no. 75112/01,
§ 33, 28 July 2005). The period of his detention for the
purposes of Article 5 § 3 thus lasted 5 months and 18 days.
- Under
the Court's case-law, the issue of whether a period of detention is
reasonable cannot be assessed in abstracto. Whether it is
reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must be assessed in
each case according to its special features. Continued detention can
be justified in a given case only if there are specific indications
of a genuine requirement of public interest which, notwithstanding
the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of respect for
individual liberty (see, among other authorities, W. v.
Switzerland, judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A
no. 254 A, p. 15, § 30, and Kudła v.
Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000 XI)
- The
Court observes that in the present case the authorities relied on the
reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence
with which he had been charged and on the severity of the sentence
that might be imposed. The judicial authorities further considered
that the applicant's detention was necessary to secure the proper
conduct of the proceedings. Finally, the courts periodically reviewed
the need to prolong the applicant's detention.
Accordingly,
the Court considers that in the particular circumstances of the case
and in view of its above findings as to the total length of the
applicant's detention, the applicant's detention was in conformity
with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5
§ 3 of the Convention.
It
follows that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be
rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4
of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the criminal proceedings had
been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement,
laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as
follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing ... by [a]
... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 16 April 2002
and ended on 11 July 2007. It thus lasted five years, two
months and twenty-six days for two instances.
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
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The Court has frequently found violations of Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one
in the present case (see Frydlender, cited above). Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case.
Furthermore, the Court considers that, in dismissing the applicant's
complaint that the proceedings in his case had exceeded a reasonable
time, the Gdańsk Regional Court failed to apply standards which
were in conformity with the principles embodied in the Court's
case-law (see Majewski v. Poland, no. 52690/99, § 36, 11
October 2005). In particular, the domestic court did not take into
consideration the period before the entry into force of the 2004 Act
on 17 September 2004.
- Having
regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in
the instant case the length of the proceedings was excessive and
failed to meet the “reasonable time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
- The applicant did not submit a claim for just
satisfaction.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 November 2008,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
