Communicated on 16 May 2019
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 24414/15
Szczepan ŁACIAK
against Poland
lodged on 4 May 2015
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Szczepan Łaciak, is a Polish national, who was born in 1973 and is detained in Cieszyn.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 21 March 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police,
On 23 March 2005 the Bielsko-Biała District Court remanded the applicant in custody in view of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed a theft. On 20 June 2005 the applicant’s detention was lifted. In the meantime, on 18 May 2008 the applicant started serving another sentence of imprisonment.
On 10 February 2011 the Bielsko-Biała District Court acquitted the applicant (III K 604/09). The judgement was upheld by the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court (VII Ka 343/11) on 11 April 2012.
On 4 July 2013 the Katowice Court of Appeal imposed a cumulative penalty on the applicant of five years’ imprisonment. The court credited the period of the applicant’s detention in this case between 21 March and 18 May 2005 towards the penalty.
2. Application for compensation on account of unjustified pre‑trial detention
On 27 July 2011 the applicant lodged an application for compensation for unjustified detention on the basis of Article 552 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. He sought 100,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage and PLN 4,500 in respect of pecuniary damage.
On 13 September 2013 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court dismissed the claim. It held that the applicant’s pre‑trial detention between 21 March and 20 June 2005 had been “undoubtedly unjustified” as the applicant had been acquitted. However, the damage sustained by the applicant had been already compensated for by crediting the period of his pre‑trial detention towards two terms of imprisonment imposed on him in two separate sets of criminal proceedings.
The applicant appealed. He argued that the crediting of a period of pre‑trial detention towards a term of imprisonment did not constitute an adequate compensation for damage because those two regimes of deprivation of liberty were different, the regime of detention on remand being more stringent.
On 5 December 2013 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. It confirmed, having regard to the applicant’s acquittal, that his pre‑trial detention had been “undoubtedly unjustified”. The Court of Appeal also agreed with the lower court that the applicant’s claim for non‑pecuniary damage had been fully satisfied by crediting the period of his pre‑trial detention towards two sentences of imprisonment imposed on him. Such non‑pecuniary nature of compensating for damage caused by unjustified pre‑trial detention was appropriate and, moreover, corresponded to the dominant trend in the case-law.
On 21 November 2014 the Supreme Court dismissed his cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 552 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
“1. An accused who, as a result of the reopening of proceedings or an appeal on points of law, has been acquitted or re‑sentenced under a more lenient provision, shall be entitled to receive from the State Treasury compensation for the pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage which he has suffered as a result of having served all or part of the sentence unjustifiably imposed on him.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall also be applicable if, after the sentencing judgment has been reversed or declared null and void, the proceedings have been discontinued by reason of material circumstances not duly considered in prior proceedings.
3. A right to compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage shall also arise if a preventive measure has been applied under the conditions specified in paragraphs 1 and 2.
4. A right to compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage shall also arise in the event of undoubtedly unjustified (niewątpliwie niesłuszne) pre‑trial detention or arrest.”
2. Case-law of the Supreme Court
In accordance with the Supreme Court’s Resolution of 15 September 1999 (no. I KZP 27/99), “undoubtedly unjustified” pre‑trial detention was a detention effected in breach of provisions of Chapter 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and which caused a hardship which the defendant should not have suffered in the light of the totality of the circumstances established in the case and, in particular, of those established in a final ruling.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention about the refusal to award him compensation for his unjustified detention on remand.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. (a) Was Article 5 § 5 of the Convention applicable to the present case? Reference is made to the fact that the domestic courts found that the applicant’s pre‑trial detention had been “undoubtedly unjustified” within the meaning of Article 552 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
(b) Does the finding of “undoubtedly unjustified” pre‑trial detention amount to a finding of a breach of Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 or 4 of the Convention (see N.C. v. Italy [GC], no. 24952/94, § 57, ECHR 2002‑X)?
(c) In particular, does this finding indicate that the detention was effected in breach of the domestic law (see the Supreme Court’s Resolution of 15 September 1999 no. I KZP 27/99)?
2. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Article 5 §§ 1, 2, 3 or 4, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Włoch v. Poland (no. 2), no. 33475/08, 10 May 2011)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy