Communicated on 19 April 2018
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 25481/16
Ryszard DOŁOMISIEWICZ
against Poland
lodged on 28 April 2016
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ryszard Dołomisiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Żołędowo. He is represented before the Court by Ms D. Kalinowska, a lawyer practising in Bydgoszcz.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant’s arrest and the appeal against it
The applicant lives in a house owned by his daughter. He is registered as living at the house.
At about 11.30 a.m. on 16 June 2015 three men entered the property. One of them was armed. They claimed to be police officers. The officers were not in uniform and did not present their police cards. They searched the house.
When the applicant’s daughter arrived at the house, she demanded that the police officers present their police cards and a search warrant, but they refused.
The applicant gave his name to the police officers. One of them recognised the applicant as being a former member of the Polish national team and a local club in speedway racing.
After some time police officers took the applicant, against his will, to a police station in Bydgoszcz. He was not told the reasons for this.
At the police station the officers made threats to the applicant to compel him to provide information about his wife, who was wanted by the police.
The applicant was not informed of any charges against him or notified of his rights. At the police station he was prevented from filing a complaint about his arrest.
The applicant was held at the police station for about one hour.
On 22 June 2015 the applicant filed a complaint about his arrest and detention with the Bydgoszcz District Court, claiming that his arrest had been unlawful, unwarranted and irregular. He also set out the facts related to his arrest.
On 26 June 2015 a judge of the District Court asked the Bydgoszcz‑Śródmieście police station for the file of the case in respect of which the applicant had been arrested.
The District Court scheduled an interlocutory hearing (posiedzenie) for 7 September 2015 to examine the applicant’s complaint. However, it was adjourned until 6 October 2015 since the court did not have any acknowledgment that the applicant had received the summons.
At the interlocutory hearing on 6 October 2015 the District Court examined and dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The applicant was not present, but according to the minutes of the interlocutory hearing, he had been properly summoned.
According to the applicant, he was not notified of the date of the interlocutory hearing.
The court said:
“The arrest of Ryszard Dołomisiewicz [the applicant] is justified in the circumstances of the case and there are no grounds to challenge its appropriateness. It transpires from the information provided by the Bydgoszcz- Śródmieście police station that Ryszard Dołomisiewicz refused to give his personal details [to the police] and therefore was taken to the police station.”
The decision was served on the applicant on 5 November 2015 and was not amenable to appeal.
2. Proceedings against the applicant
On 15 January 2016 the applicant was charged with an administrative offence (wykroczenie) under Article 65 § 2 of the Code of Administrative Offences for refusing to disclose his identity to the police on 16 June 2015.
On 5 October 2016 the Bydgoszcz District Court acquitted him. No party appealed against the judgment and therefore no written reasons were prepared.
B. Relevant domestic law
Article 244 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure reads:
“The police shall be authorised to arrest a suspected person if there is good reason to believe that he has committed an offence and it is feared that [he] may go into hiding or destroy evidence of his offence or if his identity cannot be established.”
Article 244 § 2 stipulates that anyone who is arrested must be immediately informed of the reasons for his or her arrest and of his or her rights.
Article 246 § 1 reads:
“An arrested person shall have the right to lodge a complaint with the court. In [it he or she] may request an examination of the justification for, lawfulness and appropriateness of his or her arrest.”
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention that he was arrested without being informed of the reasons for his arrest. He was detained at a police station for about one hour, even though he had given his personal details to the police.
2. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the Bydgoszcz District Court did not notify him of the interlocutory hearing scheduled for 6 October 2015. Accordingly, he could not present his arguments in the case or comment on the submissions made by the police, as they were not made available to him.
3. The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that on 16 June 2015 at the police station he was prevented from filing a complaint about his arrest.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Article 5 § 1
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (b) or (c) of this provision?
2. Was the applicant’s arrest and detention ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law”?
Article 5 § 4
1. Was the procedure by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his arrest and detention in conformity with Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (cf. Reinprecht v. Austria, no. 67175/01, § 31, ECHR 2005‑XII)?
2. Was the principle of equality of arms between the applicant and the police respected in the present case, notably in terms of the applicant’s access to the police’s submissions to the Bydgoszcz District Court?
3. Was the applicant properly summoned to the court interlocutory hearing on 6 October 2015?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy