FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 7676/06
by Janusz KOPIJ
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Giovanni Bonello, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 February 2006,
Having regard to the Court’s decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the partial decision of 16 January 2007,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Janusz Kopij, is a Polish national who was born in 1953 and lives in Malbork. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Romanowski, a lawyer practising in Gdańsk. 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.
On 22 May 2002 the applicant was arrested by the police.
On 23 May 2002 the Gdańsk District Court decided to place the applicant in pre-trial detention in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed an armed robbery as a member of an organised criminal gang.
On 13 August and 14 November 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) further extended his detention relying in particular on the risk that a heavy sentence would be imposed, which made it probable that the applicant would interfere with the course of the investigation. Moreover, the complexity of the proceedings justified keeping the applicant in detention.
Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was extended, inter alia, on 19 December 2002 and 11 March 2003. The Regional Court reiterated the original grounds given for his detention and held that keeping the applicant in custody was necessary for securing the obtaining of evidence.
On 7 May 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), upon an application from the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy), further extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention. In addition to reiterating the grounds relied on previously, the court considered that the complexity of the case and the large number of co‑accused justified the fear that, if released, the applicant would interfere with the course of the proper conduct of the proceedings.
On 16 June 2003 the applicant and 14 other co-accused were indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was accused of having participated in an organised criminal gang, having committed two armed robberies and having been in possession of an illegal firearm.
On 26 June and 18 December 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s pre‑trial detention. It considered that the severity of the possible sentence justified the fear that, if released, the applicant would attempt to influence witnesses or abscond.
Afterwards, as the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Regional Court applied to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking for the applicant’s detention to be extended beyond that term. On 12 May, 22 September and 28 December 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed the applications and extended his pre‑trial detention. The court reiterated the grounds given previously.
On 14 June and 22 November 2005 the applicant’s detention was further extended. The court observed that the period of detention had not been excessive given the complexity of the case and the need to secure the proper course of the final stages of the trial.
On 27 February 2006 the applicant’s detention was further extended.
The applicant’s numerous applications for release and appeals against the decisions prolonging his detention were to no avail.
On 30 May 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave a judgment convicting the applicant as charged. The applicant was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment.
On 26 April 2007 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. The proceedings are pending and the applicant remains in detention.
Between 15 April 2004 and 17 January 2007 the applicant served a sentence of imprisonment ordered in another set of criminal proceedings.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre-trial detention (aresztowanie tymczasowe), 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 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 5 §3 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention.
THE LAW
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of this provision.
Article 5 § 3 reads as follows, in so far as relevant:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
The Court notes that the applicant was arrested on 22 May 2002. He was convicted at first instance on 30 May 2006 by the Gdańsk Regional Court.
However, the Government submitted that between 15 April 2004 and 17 January 2007 the applicant served a prison sentence which had been imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings. The applicant acknowledged that during this period of time he had served a prison sentence ordered on 22 June 2001 by the Gdańsk District Court. The Court considers that this term, as being covered by Article 5 § 1 (a), must therefore be subtracted from the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3.
Thus, the period to be taken into consideration lasted from 22 May 2002 until 15 April 2004 and amounted to one year, ten months and 24 days.
The Government argued that the applicant’s detention was in conformity with the reasonable time requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. It was justified by “relevant” and “sufficient” grounds. Those grounds were, in particular, the gravity of the charges against the applicant, who had been accused of membership of an organised criminal gang. They further underlined the complexity of the case, which had involved nineteen co‑accused, against whom ninety charges had been laid. The Government argued that the domestic authorities had shown due diligence, as required in cases against detained persons, and that the length of the applicant’s detention was attributable to the exceptional complexity of the case.
The applicant disagreed and submitted that the length of his detention was excessive. He maintained that his pre-trial detention, also during the period when he had been serving another prison sentence, had been unjustified and had been applied automatically.
The Court reiterates 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 set out in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-..., with further references).
Turning to the circumstances of the instant case the Court notes that in their detention decisions, the authorities, in addition to the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, relied principally on three grounds, namely (1) the serious nature of the offences with which he had been charged, (2) the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and (3) the unusual complexity of the proceedings.
The applicant was charged with two counts of armed robbery committed as a member of an organised criminal gang and possession of an illegal firearm. In the Court’s view, the fact that the case concerned a member of a such criminal gang should be taken into account in assessing compliance with Article 5 § 3 (see Bąk v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 57, 16 January 2007).
The Court also accepts that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant of having committed serious offences warranted his initial detention. Also, the need to obtain a large volume of evidence and to determine the degree of the alleged responsibility of each of the defendants, who had acted in a criminal group and against whom numerous charges of serious offences had been laid, constituted valid grounds for the applicant’s initial detention.
Furthermore, according to the authorities, the likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed on the applicant created a presumption that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. However, the Court would reiterate that, while the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding or re-offending, the gravity of the charges cannot by itself justify long periods of pre-trial detention (see Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, §§ 49, 4 May 2006).
While all the above factors could justify even a relatively long period of detention, they did not give the domestic courts unlimited power to extend the measure.
Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances of the case involving an organised criminal gang and in view of its above findings as to the total length of the applicant’s detention, the Court considers that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was in conformity with the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
It follows that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıGiovanni Bonello
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy