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 WRÓBLEWSKI v. POLAND
(Application
no. 11748/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
4 March
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 Wróblewski v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Stanislav Pavlovschi,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 February 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 11748/03) 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 Adrian
Wróblewski (“the applicant”), on 24 March 2003.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- The
applicant alleged that his detention on remand exceeded a “reasonable
time” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention.
- On
11 October 2006 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to communicate
the complaint concerning the applicant's pre-trial detention to the
Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the
Convention, it was 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 1976 and lives in Toruń. As it appears
from the documents submitted, he is currently detained in the Toruń
Remand Centre.
1. First set of criminal proceedings against the
applicant and his detention on remand
- On
29 August 2002 the applicant was detained and subsequently remanded
in custody by the Chełmno District Court on charges of rape and
murder by a detention order of 31 August 2002. The latter was upheld
on 18 September 2002 by the Toruń Regional Court.
- On
several occasions, namely 25 November 2002, 25 February, 28 May,
29 September 2003 and 21 January 2004 the applicant's pre-trial
detention was prolonged. The Toruń Regional Court relied in its
decisions on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had
committed the offences and on the severity of the likely sentence.
According to its reasoning, the applicant's detention was the only
measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings in
view of the extensive body of evidence which was to be considered in
the case. The court stressed that the evidence already collected in
the case, including mechanoscopic and olfactory expert opinions,
comparative hair analysis, testimonies of witnesses and an
experimental reconstruction of the crime scene indicated a high
probability that the applicant had committed the crimes. Moreover, a
psychiatrist's examination and the observation of the applicant in a
mental institution had been ordered by the court, as well as a
genetic and chemical comparative analysis of available evidence. The
court further added that the applicant had a previous criminal
record.
- The
applicant submitted that his appeals against some of the above
decisions were dismissed by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on
18 December 2002, 18 March, 11 June 2003 and 25 February 2004.
- On
19 May 2003 the Chełmno District Prosecutor lodged a bill of
indictment against the applicant with the Toruń Regional Court.
The prosecutor requested to have 14 experts and 56 witnesses summoned
to testify.
- On
10 July 2003 the first hearing in the applicant's case was scheduled
for 20 August 2003; however the start of the trial had to be
postponed, since the applicant's counsel had asked the court to
relieve him of his duties. The newly ex officio appointed
lawyer informed the court that he was not able to fulfil his duties,
as he had earlier been appointed as counsel of the auxiliary
prosecutors – the victim's parents. The Toruń Regional Bar
immediately appointed another lawyer at the request of the court.
- On
1 August 2003 the applicant's counsel requested that the composition
of the court to hear the applicant's case be decided by the drawing
of lots.
- On
28 November 2003 the court scheduled the first hearings for 22 and
23 December 2003. On 3 December 2003 a supplementary drawing of lots
was necessary as one of the lay judges could not take part in the
proceedings.
- The
first hearings before the Toruń Regional Court were held on
22 and 23 December 2003.
- Between
3 March and 24 May 2004 the Toruń Regional Court held 14
hearings. On 24 May 2004 the applicant requested the withdrawal of
the presiding judge. His motion was dismissed by the Toruń
Regional Court on the same day.
- Between
21 September and 23 November 2004 the Toruń Regional Court held
7 hearings. On 25 November 2004 the applicant's detention on remand
was extended until 28 February 2005.
- Between
10 January and 20 June 2005 the Toruń Regional Court held 10
hearings.
- On
23 June 2005 the Toruń Regional Court found the applicant guilty
as charged and sentenced him to 25 years' imprisonment. The judgment
ran to 167 pages.
- The
applicant, the prosecutor, as well as the auxiliary prosecutors,
appealed.
- On
30 May 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and
remitted the case for re-examination to the Toruń Regional
Court. The proceedings are still pending. The applicant is still in
detention in respect of the charges against him.
2. Second set of criminal proceedings against the
applicant
- On
16 May 2002 the applicant was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months'
imprisonment for double rape.
- On
5 February 2003 the Regional Court upheld the first–instance
judgment.
- As
it transpires from the Government's submissions, which were not
contested by the applicant, he was serving the sentence imposed
between 10 June 2003 and 9 February 2004, as well as between 29
February 2004 and 9 September 2007.
3. Third and fourth sets of criminal proceedings
against the applicant
- As
it further transpires from the Government's submissions, which were
not contested either by the applicant, between 9 and 29 February 2004
he was serving a term of imprisonment imposed on 17 May 1996 by the
Nowe Miasto Lubawskie District Court in another set of criminal
proceedings.
- Moreover,
during the period between 21 May 2003 and 10 June 2003 the applicant
was serving a term of imprisonment imposed by the Grudziądz
District Court on 11 April 2001 for drunk driving.
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 described 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 contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that the application 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 29 August 2002, when he was arrested
on suspicion of rape and murder. On 23 June 2005 the Toruń
Regional Court convicted him as charged.
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 (Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96,
§ 104, ECHR 2000 XI).
On 30
May 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the applicant's
conviction. Following that date his detention was again covered by
Article 5 § 3. The applicant is currently
detained in the Toruń Remand Centre awaiting trial.
- However,
between 21 May 2003 and 9 September 2007 the applicant served three
prison sentences which had been imposed on him in three other sets of
criminal proceedings. These terms, being covered by Article
5 § 1 (a), must therefore be subtracted from the
period of the applicant's pre-trial detention for the purposes of
Article 5 § 3.
Accordingly,
the period to be considered amounts at present to 14 months.
2. The parties' submissions
(a) The Government
- The
Government argued that the applicant's
detention was in conformity with the reasonable
time requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. It was duly
justified by the gravity of the charges brought against him and the
existence of substantial evidence pointing to his guilt. The
Government also stressed that the case was very complex. They further
submitted that, since the applicant had simultaneously been serving
prison sentences imposed in three other sets of criminal proceedings
(as of 21 May 2003), an earlier release from detention in the present
case would not have resulted in his being released.
(b) The applicant
- The
applicant disagreed and submitted that the length of his detention
was excessive.
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, cited above, § 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
- In
their detention decisions, the authorities, in addition to the
reasonable suspicion against the applicant, relied principally on
three grounds, namely (1) the severity of the penalty to which he was
liable; (2) his previous convictions; and (3) detention was the
only measure which could secure the proper conduct of the proceedings
in view of the extensive body of evidence to be considered in the
case.
- The
Court accepts that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant of
having committed a serious offence could initially warrant his
detention.
- The
persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has
committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the
lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of
time it no longer suffices: the Court must then establish whether the
other grounds cited by the judicial authorities continue to justify
the deprivation of liberty.
-
In view of the evidentiary proceedings, the courts considered it
necessary to extend the applicant's pre-trial detention, in order to
prevent him obstructing the proceedings. According to the
authorities, the likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed on him
created a presumption that he might tamper with evidence, in
particular by influencing witnesses' testimonies. The courts further
stressed that the evidence already collected in the case indicated a
high probability that the applicant had committed the crimes he had
been charged with. Moreover, the court had to order the applicant's
psychiatric observation in a mental institution (see paragraph
7 above).
- 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 domestic courts gave relevant and
sufficient reasons for the applicant's detention.
- It
remains for the Court to ascertain whether the authorities, in
dealing with the applicant's case, displayed the diligence required
under Article 5 § 3 (see Mc Kay, cited above, §
44). In this regard, it would observe that the proceedings were of
considerable complexity, regard being had to the extensive body of
evidence, including mechanoscopic and olfactory expert opinions,
comparative hair analysis, and an experimental reconstruction of the
crime scene (see paragraphs 7 and 9 above). Nevertheless, the
hearings in the applicant's case were held regularly and in short
intervals. The course of the proceedings was swift and their length
reasonable (see paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 above). The Court therefore
concludes that the national authorities displayed diligence in the
conduct of the proceedings. 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 judges' efforts 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.
- In
the circumstances, the Court finds that the authorities acted with
all due diligence in handling the applicant's case.
- There
has accordingly been no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares 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 4 March 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
