Communicated on 27 January 2021
Published on 15 February 2021
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 47731/19
Mirosław CZESZEL
against Poland
lodged on 19 August 2019
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mirosław Czeszel, is a Polish national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Zaścianki. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Kardas, a lawyer practising in Kraków.The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 7 May 2015 the applicant was presented with 36 charges, including managing an organised criminal group and multiple counts of credit fraud. The charges were subsequently extended. The final bill of indictment referred to 61 charges against the applicant.
On 11 May 2015 the applicant was arrested. On 13 May 2015 the Białystok District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) detained him for 3 months. The court reasoned that it was highly probable that he had committed the offences in question, stressed the risk of tampering with evidence and referred to the fact that he faced a severe sentence. Moreover, the detention was justified as the applicant did not have a permanent place of residence. The court dismissed the applicant’s argument that he had pleaded guilty to most of his charges because, in the court’s view, he had tried to minimise his involvement in the criminal activity.
In the course of the investigation the applicant’s detention was extended several times by the Białystok Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 6 August and 5 November 2015 and 4 February 2016, and by the Białystok Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 29 April, 22 July and 26 October 2016, 20 January, 25 April, 23 June, 18 August, 20 September and 22 November 2017 and 19 January 2018.
The domestic courts based their decisions on a significant probability that the applicant had committed the offences in question and on the fact that he faced a severe sentence. Moreover, he had been accused of managing an organised criminal group and committing offences within it, which increased the risk of obstructing the proceedings. The courts also referred to the complicated nature of the case and the risk of absconding because he did not have a permanent residence in Poland (although he undoubtedly had lived in Poland his whole life). The courts stressed several times that a co-accused fled the country after he had been released from detention (see for example the Białystok Regional Court decisions of 2 November 2015 and 4 February 2016).
At the later stage of the investigation the domestic courts extended the detention for periods shorter than the customary three months and focused mostly on the need to conclude the investigation and the reasons why it had not been possible to do so before. They still relied on the risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, however their reasoning in this respect was very concise.
On 9 February 2018 the applicant was indicted with 61 charges. In the course of the court proceedings the applicant’s detention was extended several times by the Białystok Court of Appeal (on 22 February 2018) and the Warsaw Court of Appeal (on 17 May, 13 August, 14 November and 19 December 2018). The courts referred to the complicated nature of the case, the risk of tampering with evidence and the fact that he faced a severe sentence.
The applicant appealed against some of the detention decisions. The appeals were dismissed by the Białystok Regional Court (on 3 June 2015), the Białystok Court of Appeal (on 26 November 2015, 4 March and 26 August 2016, 18 May and 28 December 2017 and 8 February 2018) and the Warsaw Court of Appeal (on 18 July 2018 and 19 December 2018).
Additionally, the applicant or his lawyer filed several unsuccessful requests for release from detention or for imposing less severe preventive measures.
On 19 February 2019 after examining the applicant’s appeal against the 19 December 2018 order and acting as a second instance court, the Warsaw Court of Appeal decided that the applicant could be released on bail. The amount of bail was set at PLN 1,000,000 (approx. EUR 250,000). The applicant would be additionally placed under police supervision, prohibited from leaving the country and prohibited from contacting the co-defendants and witnesses. The court reasoned that in the light of the length of the applicant’s detention, the risk of absconding and tampering with evidence significantly decreased. The court also held that the Warsaw Regional Court, which requested the extension of the detention, had not indicated which procedural steps in the course of the trial required the applicant’s further detention.
The applicant did not pay the bail. Subsequently, various domestic courts extended the applicant’s detention modifying the conditions of the bail (the Warsaw Court of Appeal decision of 21 February 2019 upheld by the same court after the applicant’s appeal on 19 March 2019, the same court’s decision of 25 March 2019, the Warsaw Regional Court’s rulings of 8 and 25 April and 13 May 2019). The prosecutor appealed against some of those decisions, but all his appeals were dismissed on 30 May 2019.
On 23 May 2019 the Warsaw Court of Appeal set bail at PLN 300,000 (approx. EUR 75,000) in cash and a real estate mortgage for PLN 450,000 (approx. EUR 112,500). The applicant was additionally placed under police supervision and prohibited from leaving the country and contacting the co‑defendants and witnesses (with the exception of two individuals). On 4 July 2019 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the prosecutor’s appeal against that decision. The bail was paid and the mortgage was submitted on 27 May 2019. The applicant was released on 28 May 2019.Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning detention on remand (tymczasowe aresztowanie), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other 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), Celejewski v. Poland (no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006) and Kauczor v. Poland (no. 45219/06, §§ 25-33, 3 February 2009).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the unreasonable length of his detention on remand.
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy