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 MARECKI v. POLAND
(Application
no. 20834/02)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
2 December
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 Marecki 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,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi
Bianku,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 13 November 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 20834/02) 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 Stanisław
Marecki (“the applicant”), on 2 July 2001.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, that his detention on remand had
exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of
Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
- On
23 October 2007 the
Court decided to give notice of the complaint to the Government. It
also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same
time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1955 and lives in Brzozów.
- On
12 December 1998 the applicant was arrested on a charge of numerous
counts of armed robbery and membership of a criminal gang. On 13
December 1998 he was detained on remand by a decision of the Łowicz
District Court. On an unspecified date in 2000 the Łódź
Regional Prosecutor laid additional charges against the applicant
(armed robbery committed as part of an organised criminal gang and
homicide).
- Subsequently,
further decisions prolonging his detention on remand were taken by
the Skierniewice Regional Court. The relevant decisions were taken on
the following dates: 3 March 1999 (extending his detention
until 11 June 1999); 26 May 1999 (extending his detention until 12
June 1999); and 28 April 2000 (extending his detention until 12
December 2000).
- From
June 1999 onwards, decisions prolonging the applicant's detention on
remand were taken by the Łódź Court of Appeal. The
relevant decisions were taken on the following dates: 1 June 1999
(extending his detention until 12 September 1999; that decision was
upheld by the Supreme Court on 29 July 1999); 7 September 1999
(extending his detention until 13 December 1999; that decision was
upheld by the Supreme Court on 27 October 1999); 5 December 2000
(extending his detention until 31 March 2001); 20 March 2001
(extending his detention until 31 October 2001); 23 October 2001
(extending his detention until 28 February 2002); 12 February 2002
(extending his detention until 31 May 2002); 13 August 2002
(extending his detention until 23 November 2002); 5 August 2003
(extending his detention until 23 December 2003); and 22 December
2003 (extending his detention until 22 June 2004).
- On
25 November 1999 and 10 March 2000, decisions prolonging the
applicant's detention were taken by the Supreme Court following
requests by the Prosecutor General.
- The
courts justified their decisions prolonging the applicant's detention
on remand and their refusals to release him by the need to hear
evidence from the accused and witnesses, some of whom lived abroad,
the complexity of the case, the significant number of accused, the
voluminous documents gathered in the case, the existence of a
reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences
(including homicide) and the severity of the anticipated sentence.
These considerations led the courts to assume that the applicant, if
released, could obstruct the proper course of the proceedings. The
courts found on several occasions that there were no special grounds,
as specified in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, that would justify lifting the detention order and
imposing a less severe measure. In its decision of 12 February
2002 the Łódź Court of Appeal also acknowledged the
delay in the proceedings and asked the trial court to expedite the
examination of the case.
- The
applicant's appeals against decisions prolonging his detention were
unsuccessful. They were dismissed by the Skierniewice Regional Court
on 12 July 2000, 6 September 2000 and 4 October 2000 and by the Łódź
Regional Court on 30 March 2001, 25 January 2002, 14 June 2002,
29 October 2002, 29 November 2002, 7 January 2003, 25 March
2003, 6 May 2003, 15 July 2003, 17 February 2004 and 25 March
2004.
- In
the meantime, on 6 March 2000 the Skierniewice Regional Court,
following the recommendations of doctors, had ordered that the
applicant undergo a psychiatric observation for six weeks and that an
expert's opinion concerning his health be prepared.
- A
bill of indictment, concerning six accused and involving
140 witnesses, was filed with the Łódź Regional
Court on 25 April 2000.
- On
23 May 2002 the Łódź Regional Court convicted the
applicant as charged and sentenced him to 25 years' imprisonment.
- On
22 December 2003 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed
the first-instance judgment and remitted the case to the Regional
Court.
- On
6 December 2004 the Łódź Regional Court acquitted
the applicant and he was released from detention.
- The
applicant lodged a claim for compensation for
wrongful detention. The proceedings are still pending.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of
detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for
its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other,
so-called “preventive measures” (środki
zapobiegawcze) are set out 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.
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 excessive. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention, which, in so far as relevant, 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 did not submit any comments.
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 started on 12 December 1998,
when he was arrested. On 23 May 2002 the Łódź
Regional Court convicted him as charged.
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 (see Kudła v. Poland [GC],
no. 30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000 XI).
On 22
December 2003 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the
applicant's conviction. Following that date his detention was again
covered by Article 5 § 3. It continued until 6
December 2004, when the applicant was acquitted and released.
-
Accordingly, the period to be taken into consideration amounts to
four years and six months.
2. The parties' submissions
(a) The applicant
- The
applicant submitted that the length of his detention on remand had
been unreasonable.
(b) The Government
- The
Government did not submit any observations on the merits of the case.
3. The Court's assessment
(a) General principles
- The
Court observes 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, have been stated
in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other
authorities, Kudła, cited above, §§ 110 et
seq., ECHR 2000 XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC],
no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-X, with further
references).
(b) Application of the above principles in
the present case
- In
their decisions on the applicant's detention, the authorities, in
addition to the reasonable suspicion against him, relied principally
on four grounds, namely the serious nature of the offences with which
he had been charged, the severity of the penalty to which he was
liable, the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings, and
the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence.
- The
applicant was charged with numerous counts of armed robbery and
homicide committed as part of an organised and armed criminal gang
(see paragraph 6 above).
In
the Court's view, the fact that the case concerned a member of such a
criminal gang should be taken into account in assessing compliance
with Article 5 § 3 (see Bąk v. Poland, no. 7870/04,
§ 57, ECHR 2007-...).
- The
Court accepts that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant of
having committed serious offences could initially have warranted his
detention. In addition, the need to obtain voluminous evidence and to
determine the degree of the alleged responsibility of each of the
defendants, who had acted as part of a criminal gang, as well as the
process of obtaining evidence from witnesses, constituted valid
grounds for the applicant's initial detention.
- Indeed,
in cases such as the present one concerning organised criminal
groups, the risk that a detainee, if released, might bring pressure
to bear on witnesses or other co-accused or might otherwise obstruct
the proceedings is often, by the nature of things, high.
- While
all those above factors could justify even a relatively long period
of detention, they did not give the domestic courts an unlimited
power to prolong this measure. In this context, the Court would
observe that by the date of his original first-instance conviction,
the applicant had already spent three years and six months in
pre-trial detention. Following the quashing of that conviction on
appeal, he was kept in custody for a further year.
- Having
regard to the foregoing, even taking into account the fact that the
courts were faced with the particularly difficult task of trying a
case involving an organised criminal gang, the Court concludes that
the grounds given by the domestic authorities could not justify the
overall period of the applicant's detention. In these circumstances
it is not necessary to examine whether the proceedings were conducted
with special diligence.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention that the length of the proceedings in his case had
exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of that
provision.
- However,
pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention:
“The Court may only deal with the matter after all
domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally
recognised rules of international law...”
As
regards the complaint about the unreasonable length of the
proceedings, the Court observes that the present application was
lodged with it while the relevant proceedings were pending before the
domestic courts.
- It
further observes that, under 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), it was open to an applicant, in the course of the
impugned proceedings, to lodge a complaint about the unreasonable
length of proceedings with the relevant domestic court.
- The
Court has already examined that remedy for the purposes of Article 35
§ 1 of the Convention and found it to be effective in
respect of complaints about the excessive length of judicial
proceedings in Poland. In particular, it considered that it was
capable both of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a
hearing within a reasonable time or its continuation, and of
providing adequate redress for any violation that had already
occurred (see Charzyński v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03,
ECHR 2005 V). However, the applicant has not availed
himself of this remedy.
It
follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35
§§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion
of domestic remedies.
- The
applicant also complained
about the unfavourable outcome of the criminal proceedings in his
case.
- The
Court reiterates that according to Article 19 of the Convention, its
duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the
Contracting Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its
function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a
national court unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights
and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz
v. Spain [GC], no. 30544/96, § 28, ECHR 1999-I).
- In
the light of all the material in its possession and in so far as the
applicant's complaint about the outcome of the proceedings has been
substantiated, the Court finds that it does not disclose any
appearance of a violation of the Convention. The Court finds no
elements indicating that the national courts went beyond their proper
discretion in their assessment of the facts or that they reached
conclusions which could be considered unfair or unreasonable.
It
follows that this complaint is manifestly ill-founded within the
meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and therefore must
be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
- Lastly,
the applicant complained
that the proceedings for
compensation for his wrongful detention had been unfair.
The
Court observes that the domestic proceedings to determine the
applicant's claim for compensation are currently pending. Therefore,
in so far as the applicant relied on Article 6 the Convention, the
Court considers that it would be premature to take a position on the
substance of this complaint. The complaint must therefore be declared
inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
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.”
Damage, costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not submit any claim under Article 41.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the length of
the applicant's detention on remand admissible and the remainder of
the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
5 § 3 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 2 December 2008, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
