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 ŚCIEBURA v. POLAND
(Application
no. 39412/08)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
15
February 2011
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 Ściebura 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,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 25 January 2011,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 39412/08) 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 Zbigniew
Ściebura (“the applicant”), on 4 August 2008.
- The
applicant was represented by Mr M. Burda, a lawyer practising in
Cracow. 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 in
exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of
Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which amounted to interference
with his private and family
life.
- On
12 October 2009 the
President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice
of the application to the Government.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1971 and lives in Cracow.
- On
14 January 1999 criminal charges were brought against the applicant.
He was suspected of armed robberies, committed in an organised
criminal group. The applicant was in hiding at the material time.
- On
29 January 1999 an arrest warrant was issued against the applicant by
the Polish authorities. After having been unsuccessfully sought for
many months, he was eventually detained in Spain on 23 October 2001
and remanded in custody.
- Subsequently,
action was taken with a view to the applicant's extradition and on 21
October 2002, the Spanish authorities handed him over to Poland.
- On
24 October 2002 the Katowice District Court ordered that the
applicant remain in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that
he had committed the offences in question. The court considered that
keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper
conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with
evidence and induce witnesses to give false testimony or go
underground again (he had earlier been in hiding in Spain). It
further stressed the severity of the anticipated penalty and the fact
that the applicant had been acting in an organised criminal group.
- The
applicant's appeal against the detention order was dismissed by the
Katowice Regional Court on 23 December 2002. Likewise, his further
appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his
subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against
refusals to release him were unsuccessful. In his applications and
appeals he relied on his personal circumstances, in particular his
poor health, stressing that he had been infected with an HCV virus.
- In
the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was
prolonged on several occasions, namely by the Katowice Regional
Court's decisions of 16 January, 20 March and 8 September 2003, 16
January and 20 September 2004, 14 January, 6 June and 14 November
2005, 24 April and 20 October 2006 and the Katowice Court
of Appeal's decisions of 8 August 2007 and 6 February 2008. In
all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on
the original grounds given for the applicant's detention. In
addition, they stressed the existence of a strong suspicion that the
applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported
by an extensive body of evidence from witnesses and experts. Further,
they attached importance to the grave nature of the charges against
him and the fact that a “wanted” notice had been issued
for his arrest.
- On
3 March 2003 the Regional Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with
the Częstochowa Regional Court. The applicant was charged with
inter alia numerous counts of armed robberies committed in an
organised criminal group.
- On
27 March 2003 the Częstochowa Regional Court requested the
Supreme Court that the case be transferred to the Katowice Regional
Court. The court stressed the special nature of the case, which
implied that exceptional security measures be taken and special
facilities provided. On 14 May 2003 the Supreme Court granted the
request.
- Between
18 November 2002 and 16 September 2005 the applicant served a prison
sentence imposed in another set of criminal proceedings (on the
strength of the Cracow District Court's judgment of 23 February
1998).
- On
14 April 2008 the Katowice Regional Court granted the applicant's
request to be released on bail. On 16 April 2008 the applicant was
released as he had paid bail of 350,000 Polish zlotys (PLN).
- It
appears that the criminal 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 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.
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
20. 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 in Poland started on 24
October 2002 on the strength of a court's order. It continued until
16 April 2008 when he was eventually released on bail.
- However,
between 18 November 2002 and 16 September 2005 the applicant served a
prison sentence which had been imposed on him in another set of
criminal proceedings. This term, as being covered by Article 5 §
1 (a), must therefore be subtracted from the period of the
applicant's detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3.
Accordingly,
the period to be taken into consideration amounts to some two years
and eight months.
2. The parties' submissions
(a) The Government
- The
Government submitted at the outset that the overall length of the
applicant's detention was justified, having regard to the special
nature and complexity of the case, entailing extensive evidentiary
proceedings. In this connection they stressed, in particular, that
the case concerned organised crime. In cases of this kind continuous
control and limitation of contacts of the accused among themselves
and with other persons were essential to avoid absconding, tampering
with evidence or influencing witnesses' testimonies. Accordingly,
longer periods of detention were justified. Further, the Government
stressed the gravity of the charges brought against the applicant and
the existence of a strong likelihood that he had committed the
offences he had been charged with. Lastly, they maintained that it
should not be overlooked that the applicant had been in hiding and
sought pursuant to an arrest warrant before being eventually
detained.
(b) The applicant
- The
applicant submitted that the court examined his case without due
diligence. Further, he stressed that the reasons given initially to
substantiate his detention were no longer sufficient to justify the
continuous application of the measure after the lapse of a certain
period of time. Lastly, the applicant maintained that the period
during which he had been serving a prison sentence should not be
deducted from the overall period of his detention on remand. He
alleged that because he was continuously detained throughout that
period he was unable to enjoy the privileges he would have had as a
regular prisoner, inter alia he could not study and had no
access to an external telephone line; nor was he allowed intimate
contacts with his wife.
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
- In
their detention decisions, the authorities, in addition to the
reasonable suspicion against the applicant, relied principally on
three grounds, namely (1) the serious nature of the offences with
which he had been charged; (2) the severity of the penalty to which
he was liable; (3) the need to secure the proper conduct of the
proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence or go
into hiding. As regards the latter, the authorities stressed that the
applicant prior to his detention had been sought pursuant to a
“wanted notice”.
- The
applicant was charged with numerous counts of armed robbery committed
in an organised criminal group (see paragraphs 6 and 12 above).
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, 16 January 2007).
- The
Court accepts that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant of
having committed a serious offence could initially warrant his
detention. Also, the need to obtain voluminous evidence and to secure
the proper conduct of the proceedings, in particular 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 often is, by the nature of things, high (see,
Gładczak v. Poland, no. 14255/02, § 55,
31 May 2007). Furthermore, according to the authorities, the
likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed on the applicant
created a presumption to that effect. It was therefore reasonable for
the court to consider that the applicant was under considerable
temptation to evade trial, especially in view of the heavy prison
sentence to which he was liable. However, the Court reiterates that
the gravity of the charges or the penalty cannot by itself justify
long periods of detention on remand (see Michta v. Poland,
no. 13425/02, §§ 49, 4 May 2006).
Hence
the Court has to examine whether other valid reasons were provided by
the domestic courts to justify a prolonged deprivation of the
applicant's liberty.
- As
regards the risk of absconding the Court notes that the applicant was
in hiding in Spain and had been sought pursuant to an arrest warrant
prior to being extradited to Poland (see paragraphs 6-9 and 11
above). This constituted an aggravating circumstance supporting the
courts' decisions further extending his detention on remand, as the
risk of his re-absconding was exceptionally high. This, in the
Court's view, could be a factor justifying a relatively long period
of detention. The domestic courts
cannot be reproached for harbouring grave concerns that the applicant
would, if released again, go into hiding. In view of the
above, the Court is persuaded that the danger of absconding
constituted, in the particular circumstances of the present case, a
relevant and sufficient ground for refusing the applicant's
applications for release (see, mutatis mutandis, Van der
Tang v. Spain, judgment quoted above, pp. 19-20, §§
64-67).
- Having
regard to the foregoing considerations and taking into account the
fact that the courts were faced with the particularly difficult task
of trying the case involving an organised criminal group, the Court
concludes that the grounds given by the domestic authorities could
justify the entire relevant period.
- 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, McKay, cited above, §
44). In this regard, it would observe that following the already
lengthy investigation pending as of 14 January 1999, the trial
started as late as 3 March 2003, the applicant remaining in hiding
being a significant reason for that. Furthermore, the Court notes the
difficulties entailed in trying a case of an organised criminal group
which were also confirmed by a number of relevant factors such as the
exceptional security measures taken and the special facilities
provided (see paragraph 13 above).
- In
the circumstances, the Court finds that the authorities displayed
“due diligence” in handling the applicant's case.
- In view of the above considerations and in the light
of 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.
- There
has accordingly been no violation of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- Lastly,
the applicant complained in very general terms that his prolonged
confinement amounted to a violation of his right to respect for his
private and family life protected under Article 8 of the Convention,
which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows:
“ Everyone has the right to respect for
his private and family life (....)”
- The
Court considers that the applicant has failed to substantiate his
complaint.
- It
follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded
and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of
the Convention.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the length of
the applicant's detention admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been no violation of
Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 15 February 2011,
pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
