FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 77103/13
Włodzimierz Jan BASZCZYŃSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 December 2017 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 November 2013,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 10 May 2016 requesting the Court to strike a part of the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Włodzimierz Baszczyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and is detained in Warsaw.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The criminal proceedings against the applicant and his detention on remand
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. The prosecution service began investigating a criminal gang trading in drugs in August 2009.
5. The applicant was arrested on 21 December 2010. On 23 December 2010 the Łódź District Court decided to detain him on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been trading in drugs together with accomplices. The detention on remand was extended on 18 March and 28 June 2011.
6. On 14 September 2011 a bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Łódź Regional Court (Sygn akt XVIII K 169/11). The bill of indictment was directed against sixty-one persons charged with having committed 118 offences. The case file consisted of seventy-eight volumes.
7. The trial court appointed defence lawyers for ten accused. It also severed charges against fourteen of them to another set of proceedings. The first hearing, scheduled for 17 July 2012, did not take place because some of the accused were ill. The court decided to issue an arrest warrant against another accused. Further groups of accused were to be heard in a separate trial. In consequence, the number of co-accused was reduced to thirty persons, including the applicant.
8. During the proceedings the applicant’s detention was extended on multiple occasions by the Łódź Regional Court and the Łódź Court of Appeal. Appeals by the applicant against the decisions extending his detention and his numerous requests for release were dismissed.
9. In the period between 10 August 2012 and 29 April 2013 the trial court scheduled fifty-five hearings. Another 103 hearings were held later. Four to seven hearings were held every month, each lasting several hours.
10. On 30 March 2015 the Łódź Regional Court delivered its judgment in the case concerning thirty co-accused. The applicant was convicted of multiple offences and sentenced to fourteen years’ imprisonment. The applicant requested that a written copy of the judgment be served on him with the intention to appeal against it. He received a copy of the reasoned judgment on 14 December 2015.
11. On 24 December 2015 the applicant’s lawyers lodged an appeal on his behalf with the Łódź Court of Appeal.
12. On 4 November 2016 the Łódź Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case. The proceedings are pending. On an unspecified date the applicant was released from detention.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
13. On 24 May 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Łódź Court of Appeal 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 przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”).
14. On 11 July 2012 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court examined the course of the proceedings and considered that there had been no delays on the part of the courts. It noted that the trial court had taken many procedural decisions regarding severing charges against some of the accused in separate proceedings. It had also dealt with requests by the applicant to transfer the case to a different court. Furthermore, the trial court had taken decisions regarding detention on remand of the applicant and other co-accused; some of them had been released on bail and arrest warrants had been issued in respect of others. Finally, the trial court had dealt with requests made by the applicant and other accused to release them from detention.
15. On 26 July 2016 the applicant lodged another complaint under the 2004 Act. On 7 September 2016 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed it. The court examined all the stages of the proceedings in question and considered that taking into account the complexity of the case and other factors there had been no delays for which the courts should be held responsible. During the trial over one hundred hearings were held and the trial court had been active and efficient. The Court of Appeal took account of the large number of defendants and witnesses and the court’s systematic and intensive efforts to deal with what was a complex case. Finally, the behaviour of the accused had been particularly challenging as they had clearly aimed at disrupting the proper course of the proceedings. The accused had acted in an extreme manner attempting to interrupt hearings by shouting, leaving the courtroom, loudly stamping the floor and otherwise disrespecting dignity of the court.
C. Contacts with son
16. The applicant has a son, A., born on 13 December 2010. His common-law wife, Ms K.P., has a second son O., born in 2006, from a previous relationship. While detained during the investigation the applicant received regular visits from his family. He could sit with them at the same table and have direct contact with them.
17. On 16 October 2012 the Łódz Regional Court allowed K.P. to visit the applicant with O. and A., who was 22 months old at the time. The decision, however, stipulated that the visit could only take place “in a manner excluding direct contact between the visitors and the detainee”. On 16 May 2014 the court allowed the applicant to receive another visit from his common-law wife and children in identical conditions. It appears that between July 2012 and June 2015 only one visit took place in the manner described above, on 17 June 2013.
18. From 28 June 2015 the applicant has had monthly visits from his wife and sons, which have taken place in a unrestricted manner, allowing him direct contact with the visitors.
COMPLAINT
19. The applicant complained under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 of the Convention of the unreasonable length of his detention on remand and the criminal proceedings against him. He complained that he had been deprived of an effective domestic remedy, in breach of Article 13 of the Convention, in respect of his complaint about the length of the proceedings. The applicant further complained that the family visits between him and his young child had been held in a manner that had not been suitable for a child that age, in breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
THE LAW
A. Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
20. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention on remand.
21. After unsuccessful friendly-settlement negotiations, the Government informed the Court by a letter of 10 May 2016 that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by this complaint. They further requested the Court to strike out this part of the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
22. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration ‑ their acknowledgement of violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the sum of PLN 20,000 which they consider reasonable in the light of the Court’s case-law in similar cases
....
The sum referred to above, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention of Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple in
