FIRST SECTION
CASE OF STEFAŃSKI AND OTHERS v. POLAND
(Applications nos. 53844/20 and 2 others - see appended list)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
11 May 2023
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Stefański and Others v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Alena Poláčková, President,
Gilberto Felici,
Raffaele Sabato, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 6 April 2023,
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. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
12. 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 11 May 2023, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Alena Poláčková
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 pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage per applicant
(in euros)[1]
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2]
53844/20
03/11/2020
Sławomir STEFAŃSKI
1969
Nawrocki Paweł
Kwidzyn
13/03/2017 to
11/01/2021
Gdańsk-Południe District Court, 16/03/2017, case no. II Kp 406/17 (detention on remand)
Prosecutor of Gdańsl Provincial Prosecutor’s Office, 11/01/2021, case no. RPII Ds.1.2019
(detention on remand)
3 year(s) and 9 month(s) and 30 day(s)
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
5,200
250
728/21
15/12/2020
Tomasz LISOWSKI
1983
19/06/2017 to
27/11/2020
Koszalin District Court, 21/06/2017, case no. II Kp 293/17 (detention on remand)
Koszalin Regional Court, 27/11/2020, case no. II K 110/18 (main proceedings)
3 year(s) and 5 month(s) and 9 day(s)
fragility of the reasons employed by the courts;
use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;
failure to examine the possibility of applying other measures of restraint
4,700
-
57170/21
16/11/2021
Albert PORĘBSKI
1973
Cupiał Dawid
Warsaw
16/01/2018 to
17/05/2021
Płock District Court, 17/01/2018, case no. VII Kp 24/18
(detention on remand)
Warsaw Regional Court, 17/05/2021, case no. VIII K 108/18 (main proceedings)
3 year(s) and 4 month(s) and 2 day(s)
failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention;
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed
4,600
250
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicants.