FIRST SECTION
CASE OF LEHMANN AND OTHERS v. POLAND
(Applications nos. 52462/21 and 2 others – see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
6 June 2024
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Lehmann and Others v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Péter Paczolay, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 16 May 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in applications against Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on the various dates indicated in the appended table.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the applications.
THE FACTS
3. The list of applicants and the relevant details of the applications are set out in the appended table.
4. The applicants complained of the excessive length of their pre-trial detention.
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS5. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION6. The applicants complained that their pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. They relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
7. 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 v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
8. In the leading cases of Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, 3 February 2009 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, 4 May 2006, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicants’ pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION11. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kauczor, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Decides to join the applications;Declares the applications admissible;Holds that these applications disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;Holds(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicants, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Péter Paczolay
Acting Deputy Registrar President
APPENDIX
List of applications raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
No.
Application no.
Date of introduction
Applicant’s name
Year of birth
Representative’s name and location
Period of detention
Court which issued detention order / examined appeal
Length of detention
Specific defects
Amount awarded for non-pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
52462/21
18/10/2021
Marcin LEHMANN
1986
Sawicki Maciej
Gorzów Wlkp.
13/02/2018 to
04/10/2019
02/12/2020 to
10/12/2021
Szczecin Prawobrzeże i Zachód District Court, 14/03/2018, case no. VI Kp 156/18 (detention on remand);
Szczecin Court of Appeal, 19/11/2020, case no. II AKa 85/20 (main proceedings);
1 year, 7 months and 22 days
1 year and 9 days
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
3,800
250
38002/22
22/07/2022
Rafał
KIZIELEWICZ
1975
Cupiał Dawid
Warsaw
19/11/2019 to
28/03/2022
Łódź Śródmieście District Court, 20/11/2019, case no. IV Kp 602/19 (first detention on remand);
Warsaw Regional Court, case no. XVIII K 136/21 (main proceedings)
2 years and 4 months and 10 days
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed;
persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group
3,300
250
42882/22
26/08/2022
Łukasz BORYS
2000
Hołubowski Aleksander
Warsaw
22/09/2020 to
28/09/2022
Warsaw-Śródmieście District Court, 24/09/2020, case no. II Kp 2584/20 (first detention on remand);
Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor, 23/09/2022, case no. RP II Ds. 3.2021 (conversion of pre-trial detention into other preventive measures, including bail)
2 years and 7 days
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed;
persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group
2,700
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.