FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38456/03
by Tomasz OBZEJTA
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 9 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ. Casadevall, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 September 2003,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Tomasz Obzejta, is a Polish national who was born in 1974 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 May 2002 the applicant was arrested by the police.
On 16 May 2002 the Opole District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been involved in drug production while acting in an organised group. The court also stated that only the applicant’s detention would secure the proper course of the proceedings as there was a fear that he would leave Poland.
The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 6 June 2002 by the Opole Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
On 12 August and 24 December 2002 the Opole Regional Court further prolonged the applicant’s detention relying on the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, the severity of the penalty that might be imposed and the risk that the applicant would interfere with the investigation.
In December 2002 the applicant and three other co‑accused were indicted before the Słupsk Regional Court.
Subsequently the applicant’s detention was prolonged on 26 March 2003 and at hearings held on 23 June, 15 July and 10 September 2003. The trial court repeated the justification invoked on previous occasions.
On 13 October 2003 the Słupsk Regional Court gave judgment. The court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. Afterwards, his detention was further prolonged, inter alia, on 17 February 2004.
On 31 March 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) quashed the judgment and remitted the case. Subsequently, the trial court further prolonged the applicant’s detention.
On 29 November 2004 the trial court gave judgment and on the same date it prolonged the applicant’s detention. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to 6 years and 11 months’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed.
On 4 May 2005 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal again quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case.
On 10 May and 24 November 2006 and on 14 February 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention finding that the grounds for imposing this preventive measure were still valid.
The applicant’s numerous applications for release and appeals against the decisions prolonging his detention were to no avail.
On 3 April 2006, the applicant lodged a complaint about a breach of the right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. He relied on the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki) (“the 2004 Act”).
On 24 April 2006 the Slupsk Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
The applicant lodged an appeal and the proceedings are pending before the appeal court.
On 10 May 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal decided to release the applicant. The court established that the applicant had been detained since 14 May 2002, almost 4 years, and had been sentenced to 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.
On 20 June 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal examined the applicant’s complaint about the breach of his right to trial within a reasonable time. It rejected the complaint in so far as it concerned the period before the entry into force of the 2004 Act on 17 September 2004. As regard the applicant’s complaint relating to the period after that date, the Court of Appeal dismissed it as it found that the trial court had been acting diligently and speedily.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained, inter alia, about the unreasonable length of his pre‑trial detention and of the criminal proceedings. He relied on Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 23 May 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Tomasz Obzejta, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 10,000 with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above‑mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, 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. From the expiry of the above‑mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.”
On 23 August 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the Agent of the respondent Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 10,000 to Mr Tomasz Obzejta with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above‑mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.
This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, 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 payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.”
The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention). Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy