FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 25120/09
Krzysztof LENARTOWICZ
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 31 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 May 2009,
Having regard to the declarations of the respondent Government dated 14 November 2011 and 20 December 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Lenartowicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1964. He is currently serving a prison sentence in Białystok Remand Centre. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was arrested on suspicion of extortion on 26 October 2003. On 30 October 2003 the Warsaw-Śródmieście District Court remanded the applicant in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed a large number of serious offences acting in an armed organised criminal gang.
On 14 January 2004 the Ostrołęka Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 5 June 2004. It found that it was highly probable that he had committed the offences in question, having regard to evidence given by victims and the State’s witnesses. The court relied further on the fact that the applicant had acted in an organised criminal gang which was of utmost social danger.
On 11 May 2004 the Ostrołęka Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention until 30 October 2004. It held that there was a risk that the applicant would exert pressure on witnesses, especially as some victims had been threatened in the past by members of the gang. The court further invoked the severity of the anticipated penalty.
On 22 October 2004 the Warsaw Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 5 January 2005. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it found that the applicant might unlawfully obstruct the proceedings as he had earlier gone into hiding. On 10 December 2004 the same court extended his detention until 14 May 2005.
On an unspecified date in 2005 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Ostrołęka Regional Court. The applicant was charged with forty different offences, including, amongst others, having acted in an organised armed gang, arson, extortion, robberies, bribery and drug-trafficking.
On 9 May 2005 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 25 October 2005.
On 21 October 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal extended his detention until 25 April 2006. It underlined the particular complexity of the case. Subsequently, the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention on several occasions. The relevant decisions were given on 21 April 2006 (until 26 October 2006), 20 October 2006 (until 26 February 2007) and on 23 February 2007 (until 26 June 2007). In all those decisions the Court of Appeal invoked the severity of the anticipated penalty and the risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings.
On 11 June 2007 the Ostrołęka Regional Court convicted the applicant of nearly all the charges and sentenced him to thirteen years and six months’ imprisonment and a fine. The applicant appealed.
On 26 May 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal partly quashed and partly upheld the first-instance judgment. It remitted the case to the trial court in respect of twenty-six charges against the applicant. The Court of Appeal reduced the term of imprisonment to seven years.
On an unspecified date but not later than 12 June 2008 the applicant started serving a term of imprisonment to which he had been sentenced by the Warsaw Court of Appeal.
On 26 September 2008 the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 November 2008.
On 28 November 2008 the Ostrołęka Regional Court extended his detention until 30 March 2009. Subsequent decisions on the applicant’s detention were given by the same court on 25 March 2009 (until 31 July), 23 July 2009 (until 31 October), 22 October 2009 (until 31 March 2010) and on 31 March 2010 (until 30 June 2010).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand.
THE LAW
The applicant complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention which provides, 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.”
By letter dated 14 November 2011 which was received on 21 November 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. By a further letter dated 20 December 2011 the Government made technical and editorial amendments to the initial declaration.
The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the unreasonable duration of the applicant’s pre-trial detention (Article 5 § 3 of the Convention).
Consequently, the Government are prepared to pay to the applicant the sum of PLN 4,000 (four thousand Polish zlotys) which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court’s case law. The sum referred to above, 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. It 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 Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as ‘any other reason’ justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. ...”
The applicant did not comment on the Government’s declaration.
The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified, under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if:
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wish the examination of the case to be continued.
To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey, [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR 2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.), no. 11602/02, 26 June 2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.), no. 28953/03, 18 September 2007).
The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints of a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention as regards the unreasonable length of pre‑trial detention (see, Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, 3 February 2009 with further references).
Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 7 § 1 in fine).
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy