FOURTH SECTION
PARTIAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 34052/96
by Artur OLSTOWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 February 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
MrG. Ress,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrV. Butkevych,
MrsS. Botoucharova, judges,
andMrV. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 7 February 1996 and registered on 5 December 1996,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1970 and living in Tczew (Poland).
A.Particular circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 December 1993 the applicant was detained by the police. Subsequently, he was charged with the commission of robbery together with three accomplices. On 16 December 1993 the Starogard Gdański District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody.
On 22 February 1994 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) decided to extend the applicant’s detention. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that decision to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). On 16 March 1994 the appellate court dismissed the appeal. It rejected the applicant’s contention that the Regional Court’s decision referred only in general terms to the reasons justifying his detention. In addition, the appellate court considered that the evidence taken from one of the witnesses, Mrs G.G., gave rise to reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the robbery.
On 24 May 1994 the Gdańsk Regional Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention until 1 September 1994. It considered that the evidence showed that the applicant had probably committed the criminal offence with which he was charged. The court pointed out that several pieces of evidence remained to be taken, including the psychiatric examination of the applicant. It also considered that the fact that the investigation in the case was not concluded at that stage could not be attributed to the inactivity of the prosecuting authorities. On 27 May 1994 the applicant appealed to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal against that decision. On an unspecified date his appeal was dismissed.
On 29 August 1994 the Gdańsk District Prosecutor submitted to the Gdańsk Regional Court a bill of indictment. On an unspecified date the Regional Court transmitted it back to the District Prosecutor instructing him to elaborate its reasoning.
On 10 November 1994 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request to release him from detention. The court noted, inter alia, that the evidence gave rise to reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a criminal offence, which constituted significant danger to society (znaczny stopień społecznego niebezpieczeństwa). It also observed that the applicant’s son was cared for by his de facto spouse, who was assisted by her parents and the applicant’s mother.
On 15 and 21 November 1994 the applicant submitted to the Gdańsk Regional Court requests that he be released from detention.
On 28 November 1994 the Gdańsk District Prosecutor re-submitted a bill of indictment to the Gdańsk Regional Court.
On 5 December 1994 the applicant requested the Gdańsk Regional Court to release him from detention.
On 17 January 1995 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s requests to release him from detention. The court noted that the evidence gave rise to reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a criminal offence, which caused significant danger to society. It also rejected the applicant’s contention that he should be released because he had already spent a long period of time waiting for a hearing and pointed out that a hearing in his case was fixed for 23 February 1995.
On 25 January 1995 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Court’s decision of 17 January 1995. The appellate court referred to several pieces of evidence collected in the case, which in its opinion pointed to the applicant’s guilt. It also recalled significant danger to society constituted by the criminal offence with which the applicant was charged and observed that, in view of the length of a sentence, which could be imposed on him for the commission of that offence, his detention was not excessively long.
On 23 February 1995 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s request that he be released from detention. On the same date the first hearing in the case was held. It was adjourned until 24 April 1995.
On 1 March 1995 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Court’s decision of 23 February 1995 rejecting his application for release from detention. The appellate court referred, inter alia, to significant danger to society caused by the criminal offence with which the applicant was charged and the fact that the lowest sentence which could be imposed was five years. The court further noted that the applicant had not submitted any evidence showing that the situation of his family called for his release. It also pointed out that the length of court proceedings before the Regional Court was excessive (nadmierna długość postępowania sądowego). In that connection, the appellate court recalled that a period of three months had elapsed between the date on which the bill of indictment had been submitted to the trial court and the date of the first hearing. In addition, the first hearing had been adjourned for two months and only one day was reserved in the Regional Court’s calendar for the second hearing, which in the appellate court’s opinion, would result in a further adjournment as it would be impossible to take evidence from all four suspects in the case on a single day. The Gdańsk Court of Appeal finally recommended that the court proceedings in the case should be expedited.
On 19 May 1995 the Vice-President of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal replied to the applicant’s letter of 8 April 1995 in which he complained, inter alia, about the delay in the court proceedings. The Vice-President advised the applicant that he was not in position to interfere with the court proceedings and that only an independent court was competent to decide whether his detention on remand was justified. Furthermore, the Vice-President observed that a hearing held on 23 February 1995 had been adjourned because of the absence of counsel and that during a hearing held on 24 April 1995 evidence was taken from the defendants and eight witnesses. He also informed the applicant that the inability to hold hearings at shorter intervals resulted from the heavy workload of judges and the lack of courtrooms. Finally, the Vice-President observed that, although the applicant’s case disclosed certain delay in the court proceedings, it was not significant and that the President of the Gdańsk Regional Court had been informed about the necessity to expedite proceedings in criminal cases.
The next hearings in the case took place on 25 May and 5 July 1995.
On 25 July 1995 the Gdańsk Regional Court rejected as unsubstantiated the applicant’s challenge to one of the judges considering his case.
On 28 September and 16 November 1995 the Regional Court held hearings in the case.
On 16 November 1995 the Gdańsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request for release from detention. On 29 November 1995 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision. The appellate court observed that the court proceedings in the applicant’s case had been expedited and that they should end before 21 December 1995. It also recalled the significant danger to society caused by the criminal offence with which the applicant was charged.
On 7 December 1995 a hearing in the case took place.
On 4 January 1996 the Gdańsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request to release him from detention. On 17 January 1996 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision. The appellate court referred, inter alia, to the fact that the evidence collected in the course of the proceedings showed that charges laid against the applicant were justified. In addition, the alleged criminal act was drastic and involved the theft of a significant sum of money. The court noted that the proceedings had been recently expedited and pointed out that a hearing scheduled for 24 January 1995 had been adjourned “for objective reasons”. Moreover, the next hearing was fixed for 24 January 1996.
The hearing scheduled for 24 January 1996 was cancelled. The next hearing was fixed for 2 February 1996.
On 2 February 1996 the Gdańsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request that he be released from detention. On 14 February 1996 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision. It considered that the evidence in the case pointed at the applicant and his co-defendants. Furthermore, the court agreed with the applicant’s submission that the proceedings in his case had already took a significant period of time. However, it considered that, in view of the nature of the charges laid against the applicant, that period was not excessive. The appellate court further noted that since only two witnesses remained to be heard in the case, it was probable that the proceedings would end during a hearing fixed for 26 March 1996.
On 9 April 1996 a hearing was held before the Regional Court.
The hearings scheduled for 26 and 30 April 1996 were adjourned until 17 May 1996 because of the illness of counsel.
On 28 April 1996 the Gdańsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request that he be released from detention. On 15 May 1996 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against that decision. The appellate court recalled the significant danger to society caused by the criminal offence with which the applicant was charged. It also pointed out that although the detention had lasted already 30 months, the trial court had not failed to try to expedite the proceedings. In this connection, it observed that five hearings had been held since the beginning of 1996 and that the trial court was not responsible for the failure to conclude the proceedings. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal was of the opinion that the worsening financial situation of the applicant’s family did not constitute a ground for his release and observed that the applicant’s wife was helped by social services, which provided for her basic needs.
On 31 May 1996 a hearing took place before the trial court.
In a letter of 4 June 1996 the Ombudsman informed the applicant that his human rights had not been violated in the course of the criminal proceedings against him and pointed out that the trial court was not responsible for the delay in the proceedings.
On 25 July 1996 the Gdańsk Regional Court rejected a request submitted by the applicant together with his counsel that he be released from detention. On unspecified dates the applicant and his counsel lodged separately appeals against that decision.
On 7 August 1996 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal lodged by the applicant’s counsel against the Regional Court’s decision of 25 July 1996. The court pointed out that the applicant was charged with a criminal offence, which carried “a heavy load of social harmfulness” (wysoki ładunek społecznej szkodliwości), especially in view of the manner in which it had been committed. Moreover, a severe penalty, which could be imposed for the commission of such an offence, justified the detention. The court also stated that although the judicial proceedings in the case were substantially delayed, they would be probably concluded shortly.
On 28 August 1996 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Regional Court’s decision of 25 July 1996. The appellate court referred to the grounds for its decision of 7 August 1996. In addition, it pointed out that the proceedings in the case had reached the final stage, as there had been a hearing fixed for 2 September 1996 and only two witnesses had been called to testify on that date.
On 7 November 1996 a hearing took place.
On 23 November 1996 the Gdańsk Regional Court rejected the applicant’s request that he be released from detention.
On 30 December 1996 the Gdańsk Regional Court transmitted the case-file to the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy), together with a request that the applicant’s detention on remand be extended.
On 16 January 1997 the Supreme Court decided to extend the applicant’s detention until 30 April 1997. The court firstly observed that there existed in the applicant’s case general legal grounds for detaining him on remand. It considered that, although the question of guilt would be decided by the trial court, the evidence collected in the course of the proceedings pointed towards the applicant’s guilt. Moreover, the Supreme Court pointed out that although the proceedings in the case had lasted so far more than 3 years, they had reached the final stage already in 1995. However, 13 out of 20 hearings scheduled in 1996 had been adjourned for reasons over which the trial court had no influence. Moreover, the counsel acting in the case were responsible for 11 adjournments. The Supreme Court based its decision to extend the applicant’s detention on Article 222 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which provided for the prolongation of detention because of “other significant circumstances, which could not be overcome by the organs conducting the proceedings” (inne istotne okoliczności, których organy prowadzące postępowanie nie mogły usunąć). It also pointed out that the proceedings could end in the near future after just a few additional hearings. Finally, the court recommended that additional defence lawyers be appointed in the case in order to avoid adjournments of hearings caused by the ill-health of counsel.
On 27 and 28 February 1997 hearings were held before the Regional Court.
On 3 March 1997 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant of robbery and sentenced him to 8 years’ imprisonment, a fine and a deprivation of civil rights for a period of 6 years. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against that judgment to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal.
On 17 June 1998 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the judgment of the trial court and remitted the case to the prosecution service instructing it to re-open criminal investigation. On the same date the applicant was released from detention.
Relevant domestic law
At the material time, the 1969 Code of Criminal Procedure listed as preventive measures, inter alia, detention on remand, bail and police supervision. Article 209 of the Code, which set out general grounds justifying the imposition of preventive measures, provided as follows:
“Preventive measures may be imposed in order to secure the proper course of proceedings if the evidence against the accused sufficiently justifies the opinion that he has committed a criminal offence.”
Furthermore, the Code of Criminal Procedure allowed authorities a margin of discretion as to whether to continue the enforcement of preventive measures. Detention on remand was regarded as the most severe preventive measure. Article 213 of the Code provided as follows:
“A preventive measure shall be immediately quashed or changed if the grounds therefor have ceased to exist or if new circumstances have arisen, which justify quashing a given measure or replacing it with one that is either more or less severe.”
Article 225 of the Code provided:
“Detention on remand shall be imposed only when it is mandatory; this measure shall not be imposed if bail or police supervision, or both of these measures are considered adequate.”
Article 217 of the Code, before it was amended on 1 January 1996, provided insofar as relevant:
“Detention on remand may be imposed if:
there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding, in particular when his identity cannot be established or he has no permanent domicile, orthere is a reasonable risk that he will attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper course of proceedings by any other unlawful means, orthe accused was charged with a commission of a criminal offence or acted as a habitual offender, as provided for by the Criminal Code, orthe accused was charged with the commission of an act which constituted significant danger to society.”
Until 4 August 1996, when the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended, Polish law did not set out any statutory time-limits concerning detention on remand in court proceedings, but only in respect of the investigative stage.
Article 222 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as applicable after 4 August 1996, provided, insofar as relevant:
“3.The whole period of detention on remand until the date on which the court of first instance gives judgment may not exceed one year and six months in cases concerning ordinary offences. In cases concerning serious offences this period may not exceed two years.
4.In particularly justified cases the Supreme Court may, upon the request of the court competent to deal with the case (…) prolong detention on remand for a further fixed period exceeding the periods referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3, when it is necessary in connection with a suspension of the proceedings, a prolonged psychiatric observation of the accused, when evidence needs to be obtained from abroad or when the accused has deliberately obstructed the termination of the proceedings in the terms referred to in paragraph 3.”
Subsequently, point 4 was extended to include also “other significant circumstances, which could not be overcome by the organs conducting the proceedings”.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the unreasonable length of his detention on remand and court proceedings was in breach of Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention respectively.
He further complains about the assessment of evidence by domestic courts. In particular, he claims that he did not have a fair trial since the charges brought against him were absurd and the evidence was fabricated.
Moreover, the applicant avers that Article 6 § 2 was breached in his case on account of the unreasonable length of his detention.
He also invokes Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention, claiming that on one occasion he did not have adequate time to prepare himself for a court hearing.
Finally, the applicant complains that the facts of his case disclose a violation of Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention.
THE LAW[Note1]
1.The applicant complains that the unreasonable length of his detention on remand and court proceedings was in breach of Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention respectively. He also submits that Article 6 § 2 was breached in his case on account of the unreasonable length of his detention.
The Court considers that at the present stage it cannot, on the basis of the case-file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of these complaints to the respondent Government.
2.The applicant complains that the facts of his case disclose a further violation of his right to a fair trial (Article 6), the right to have adequate time to prepare his defence (Article 6 § 3 (b)) and the right to examine witnesses against him (Article 6 § 3 (d)).
However, the Court observes that it appears from the applicant’s submissions that his appeal against the judgment of the trial court was allowed and his conviction was quashed by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. Therefore, the applicant obtained within the domestic judicial system an effective remedy against the alleged breaches of his rights during his trial. It follows that these complaints are manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 § 4.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant’s complaints under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 concerning the unreasonable length of detention on remand and criminal court proceedings and his complaint under Article 6 § 2 about the breach of his right to be presumed innocent;
DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.
Vincent BergerMatti Pellonpää
RegistrarPresident
[Note1]In your reasoning specify: Complaint / Article of the Convention [/ Succinct summary of Government’s submissions / Succinct summary of applicant’s submissions in communicated case] / Court’s [Commission’s] case-law, if any / Application of case-law to facts of particular case or considerations for specific facts of case.
Remember to use automatic paragraph numbering (Alt+N) followed by a tab.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy