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 JOŃCZYK v. POLAND
(Application
no. 19789/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
30
November 2010
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 Jończyk v.
Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór
Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi
Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 9 November 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application (no. 19789/08) 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 Grzegorz Jończyk
(“the applicant”), on 10 April 2008.
- 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 he had been unlawfully
detained in a regular detention centre pending his transfer to a
psychiatric hospital.
- On
1 September 2008 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give
notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to
rule on the admissibility and merits of the application at the same
time (Article 29 § 1) and to grant priority to the
application (Rule 41 of the Rules of the Court).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1976 and is currently detained in Kassel,
Germany.
- On
7 December 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of uttering
threats and domestic violence. On 8 December 2007 the Żary District
Court ordered his detention on remand.
- On
22 December 2007 he was admitted to a psychiatric hospital and
diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. He was discharged from the
hospital on 2 January 2008.
- On
9 April 2008 the Żary District Court gave a decision and
discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. The court found
it established that the applicant had committed the offences with
which he had been charged. However, he could not have been held
criminally responsible as he had been suffering from paranoid
schizophrenia. It further referred to the experts' opinion and
ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital.
- On
the same date the court also refused the applicant's motion for
release. The court considered that there was a reasonable suspicion
that the applicant might commit another crime.
- On
23 April 2008 the Żary District Court extended the applicant's
detention until 22 September 2008. The court referred to the reasons
given previously. In addition, it relied on the risk that the
applicant might commit yet another offence. It stressed that it was
necessary to keep the applicant in detention until his admission to a
psychiatric hospital.
- The
applicant was transferred between different detention centres. After
28 March 2008 he was detained in the Nowa Sól Detention
Centre.
- On
21 May 2008 the Żary District Court was informed that the
applicant had appealed against the decision of 9 April 2008. However
he had filed his appeal with the Supreme Court instead of with the
Regional Court. Therefore, the Supreme Court asked the lower court to
examine whether the applicant's motion could be regarded as an appeal
against the decision of 9 April 2008.
- On
2 July 2008 the Zielona Góra Regional Court dismissed the
applicant's appeal and upheld the decision of 9 April 2008. The court
held that all the conditions for imposing the preventive measure on
the applicant had been met.
- On
7 July 2008 the Żary District Court gave a decision and ordered
that the applicant be placed in the Lubiąż Psychiatric
Hospital. It was also established that the applicant could be
admitted to this facility on 8 August 2008. However, the
applicant subsequently appealed against this decision in so far as it
related to the choice of hospital and the case file was transferred
to the Zielona Góra Regional Court. On 29 August 2008
the Zielona Góra Regional Court upheld the decision of
7 July 2008.
- The
applicant was admitted to the hospital on 15 September 2008.
- It
appears that he left the hospital on a later unknown date before
February 2009.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1997, which entered
into force on 1 September 1998, defines pre-trial detention as
one of the so-called “preventive measures” (środki
zapobiegawcze).
- A more detailed rendition of the relevant domestic law
and practice concerning the imposition of pre-trial detention
(aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its prolongation,
release from detention and rules governing other preventive measures
can be found 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).
- Article 264
§ 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
“If the proceedings are discontinued by reason of
insanity of the accused, preliminary detention may be maintained
pending the application of a preventive measure.”
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that he had been remanded in custody despite
being mentally ill. The Court considers that this complaint should be
examined under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, the
relevant part of which reads as follows:
“1. Everyone has the right to liberty
and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save
in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed
by law:
(...)
(c) the lawful arrest or detention of a
person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent
legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an
offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his
committing an offence or fleeing after having done so...
(e) the lawful detention of ... persons of
unsound mind ...”
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. The applicant's submissions
- The
applicant stressed that the period of his detention after the
proceedings had been discontinued had been unlawful. He concluded
that there had been a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the
Convention.
2. The Government's submissions
- The
Government replied that the applicant's detention had been justified
and compatible with the provisions of Article 258 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. They stressed that the final decision on the
applicant's placement in a psychiatric hospital had been given on 29
August 2008 and it was only after that date that the lawfulness of
the applicant's detention in an ordinary detention centre should be
examined. They further agreed that the detention after 29 August
2008 fell within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (e). However, it was
“in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and
“lawful”.
- They
further stressed that the applicant made a procedural mistake and
filed his appeal with the Supreme Court instead of lodging it with
the Regional Court which contributed to the overall length of the
proceedings.
- They
maintained that it would have been against the applicant's personal
rights to place him in the psychiatric hospital before his appeal was
examined and the relevant decision had become final.
- In
the Government's opinion there was no delay in the applicant's
admission to a psychiatric hospital. The delay of seventeen days
(between 29 August and 15 September 2008) should be regarded as fully
acceptable and compatible with the standards worked out by the
Court's case-law.
3. The Court's assessment
- The
Court reiterates that Article 5 § 1 of the Convention
contains an exhaustive list of permissible grounds for deprivation of
liberty. However, the applicability of one ground does not
necessarily preclude that of another; a detention may, depending on
the circumstances, be justified under more than one sub-paragraph
(see Eriksen v. Norway, judgment of 27 May 1997,
Reports 1997 III, p. 861, § 76).
- The
Court firstly observes that in the instant case the applicant's
deprivation of liberty between 2 July 2008 and 15 September 2008
falls within the scope of Article 5 § 1 (e) (see
Mocarska v. Poland, no. 26917/05, § 42, 6 November 2007
and Kumenda v. Poland, no. 2369/09, § 26, 8 June 2010).
In this respect it also notes that the subsequent decisions of 7 July
and 29 August 2008 concerned only the enforcement of the decision to
place the applicant in a psychiatric hospital (choice of hospital)
(see paragraph 14 above).
- It
must further be established whether the applicant's detention in an
ordinary detention centre between 2 July 2008 and 15 September
2008 was “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”
and “lawful” within the meaning of Article 5 § 1
of the Convention. The Convention here refers essentially to national
law and states the obligation to conform to the substantive and
procedural rules thereof. Reiterating that it is in the first place
for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and
apply domestic law (see Bouamar v. Belgium, judgment
of 29 February 1988, Series A no. 129, p. 21,
§ 49) the Court accepts the parties' arguments that the
applicant's detention during the period under consideration was based
on Article 264 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and was therefore lawful under domestic law.
- However,
for the purposes of Article 5 of the Convention, the lawfulness
under domestic law of the applicant's detention is not in itself
decisive. It must also be established that his detention during the
relevant period was in conformity with the purpose of Article 5
§ 1 of the Convention, which is to prevent persons from
being deprived of their liberty in an arbitrary fashion (see Witold
Litwa v. Poland, no. 26629/95, §§ 72 73,
ECHR 2000 III).
- The
Court notes that the length of detention pending transfer to a
psychiatric hospital is not specified by any statutory or other
provision. Nevertheless, it must determine whether the continuation
of detention for two and a half months after the proceedings had been
discontinued can be regarded as lawful.
-
The Court observes that in the present case the Żary District
Court ordered the applicant's placement in a psychiatric hospital on
9 April 2008. Following the applicant's appeal this decision was
subsequently upheld by the Zielona Góra Regional Court on 2
July 2008.
- On
7 July 2008 the Żary District Court indicated that the applicant
should be placed in a psychiatric hospital in Lubiąż. The
hospital replied that the applicant could be admitted on 8 August
2008. Since the applicant appealed against this decision, the
admission was postponed pending the examination of his appeal. The
Court observes that the applicant's appeal was examined on 29 August
2008 – that is one month and three weeks later (see paragraph
14 above). The applicant was finally placed in a psychiatric hospital
on 15 September 2008.
- The
Court accepts the Government's arguments that it would be unrealistic
and too rigid an approach to expect the authorities to ensure that a
place is immediately available in a selected psychiatric hospital.
However, a reasonable balance must be struck between the competing
interests involved. In the present case the Court agrees with the
Government that the applicant's conduct contributed to the length of
the proceedings. In this connection the Court observes the delay in
his admission to the psychiatric hospital and thus the beginning of
the treatment resulted from the fact that the applicant challenged
the final decision indicating the hospital in which he was supposed
to be placed (see paragraph 14 above).
- Consequently,
the Court finds that, in the circumstances of the present case, a
reasonable balance was struck and the delay in the admission of the
applicant to a psychiatric hospital was not excessive (see Morsink
v. the Netherlands, no. 48865/99, §§ 61-70,
11 May 2004; Brand v. the Netherlands, no. 49902/99, §§
58-67, 11 May 2004; and Mocarska, cited above, §
48).
- There
has accordingly been no violation of Article 5 § 1
of the Convention.
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the overall length of his detention in a
regular detention centre 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.”
38. The
Court observes that the applicant's detention started on 10 December
2007, when he was arrested and
detained on remand. On 9 April 2008 the
proceedings against him were discontinued. This decision was upheld
on 2 July 2008. Accordingly, the period to be taken into
consideration amounts to seven months.
- The
Court firstly reiterates 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 set out 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 Bąk
v. Poland, no. 7870/04, §§ 56-65, 16
January 2007).
- Turning
to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that the
grounds given by the judicial authorities to justify the applicant's
continuous detention satisfied the requirement of being “relevant”
and “sufficient”. The Court also accepts that the risk
that the applicant might commit yet another offence warranted his
initial detention.
- The
Court further observes that the criminal proceedings were
discontinued by the court of first-instance on 9 April 2008. The
subsequent delay in the appeal proceedings resulted from the fact
that the applicant erroneously filed his appeal with the Supreme
Court (see paragraph 12 above).
- For
these reasons, the Court finds that the domestic authorities cannot
be criticised for failure to observe “special diligence”
in the handling of the applicant's case.
- In view of the overall length of the applicant's
pre-trial detention and the criteria established in its case-law in
similar cases, the Court considers that the applicant's detention
does not disclose any appearance of a breach of the “reasonable
time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. This
complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in
accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
III. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1
alleging unfairness of the proceedings. Lastly, he invoked Articles 3
and 4 of the Convention.
- The
Court finds that the facts of the case do not disclose any appearance
of a violation of the above-mentioned provisions. It follows that
these complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of
Article 35 § 3 and must be rejected in accordance
with Article 35 § 4.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint under Article 5 § 1
of the Convention (as regards the applicant's detention between 2
July 2008 and 15 September 2008) admissible and the remainder of
the application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 30 November 2010,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
