FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13478/08
by Sławomir CHOMONT
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Ján Šikuta,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 September 2007,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Sławomir Chomont, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Włodawa. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. The first set of criminal proceedings against the applicant (III K 1/01)
On 10 May 2000 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a robbery.
On 12 May 2000 the Stargard Szczeciński District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would go into hiding.
An appeal by the applicant against the detention order, and likewise his further appeals against some of the decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him were unsuccessful.
In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on 8 August 2000 (to 10 October 2000), 5 October 2000 (to 10 November 2000), 7 November 2000 (to 19 December 2000) and 12 December 2000 (to 31 January 2001). In their decisions the authorities relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. The courts also stressed that, owing to the complexity of the case, the investigation had still not been completed.
On an unspecified date in December 2000 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The applicant was charged with robbery.
During the court proceedings the courts further extended the applicant’s detention on several occasions, namely on 9 January 2001 (to 30 June 2001), 20 June 2001 (to 31 October 2001), on an unspecified subsequent date and 18 December 2001 (to 30 June 2002). The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s continued detention.
On 13 February 2002 the Szczecin Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged. The applicant appealed.
On an unspecified date the Szczecin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for reconsideration.
On an unspecified subsequent date the above set of proceedings was joined to another set of proceedings against the applicant (III K 13/3, see below).
2. The second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant (III K 13/3)
On 10 December 2001 the Szczecin District Court remanded the applicant in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed several offences of robbery while acting as part of an organised criminal group. The court attached importance to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings.
An appeal by the applicant against the detention order, and likewise his further appeals against some of the decisions extending his detention and all his subsequent applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him were unsuccessful.
In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended on 26 February 2002 (to 30 June 2002), 25 June 2002 (to 31 October 2002), 15 October 2002 (to 10 December 2002) and on an unspecified subsequent date. In their decisions the authorities relied on the original grounds given for the applicant’s detention. The courts also stressed that, owing to the complexity of the case, the investigation had still not been completed.
On an unspecified subsequent date in 2003 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Szczecin Regional Court. The applicant was charged with several counts of robbery committed while acting in an organised criminal group.
During the court proceedings the courts further extended the applicant’s detention pending trial on several occasions, namely on 21 October 2003 (to 27 May 2004), 27 April 2004 (to 12 September 2004), 9 September 2004 (to 12 March 2005), 8 March 2005 (to 12 September 2005), 10 August 2005 (to 7 November 2005), 26 October 2005 (to 7 February 2006), 27 January 2006 (to 30 March 2006), 9 March 2006 (to 30 April 2006), 19 April 2006 (to 30 May 2006) and 25 May 2006 (to 30 June 2006). The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s continued detention. They underlined the complexity of the case and the fact that the imposition of a less severe preventive measure would not secure the proper course of the trial.
On 30 June 2006 the Szczecin Regional Court found the applicant guilty as charged. The applicant appealed.
On 30 July 2007 the Szczecin Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case to the first-instance court for retrial.
The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre‑trial detention on remand (tymczasowe aresztowanie), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing others, so-called “preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze) are set out 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 May 2006).
COMPLAINTS
Invoking in substance Article 3 of the Convention the applicant complained about the lack of appropriate health care while in pre-trial detention. Further, he complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention.
THE LAW
On 28 August 2009 the Court received the following declaration from the Government:
“I, Jakub Wołąsiewicz, Agent of the Polish Government, declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 9,000 (nine thousand Polish zlotys), to Mr Sławomir Chomont with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, 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 and 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 on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
On 9 July 2009 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Sławomir Chomont, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 9,000 (nine thousand Polish zlotys) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, 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 and 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 on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy