FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 54072/11
Jacek PIELESIAK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 December 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 August 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Jacek Pielesiak, is a Polish national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Łódź.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case and the applicant’s pre-trial detention
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On 18 September 2006 the applicant was charged with a number of offences committed in an armed organised criminal group.
5. On 25 September 2006 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) gave a decision, ordering the applicant’s detention on remand for a period of three months. At the relevant time, the applicant had been serving a prison sentence imposed on him in other criminal proceedings against him. The applicant was serving that prison sentence until 31 January 2008.
In its decision, the District Court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. The court further emphasised the gravity of the offences, the applicant’s active involvement in the criminal group and the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him after conviction. According to the domestic court, the fact that the applicant had been at the relevant time serving a prison sentence did not minimise the risk of him obstructing the proceedings. Additionally, a continued questioning of other members of the criminal group as well as the necessity to obtain other evidence justified remanding the applicant in custody.
6. On 19 December 2006 and 26 June 2007 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended the applicant’s pre-trial detention. Subsequently, the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention on 19 September 2007, 19 December 2007, 28 March 2008, 18 June 2008, 22 October 2008 and on 23 December 2008. The courts repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s continued detention.
7. The applicant lodged a number of appeals against the decisions to extend his detention but to no avail.
8. On 31 January 2008 the applicant started serving a two years’ imprisonment sentence imposed on him by the Łódź District Court in a separate set of criminal proceedings. He continued to serve this sentence until 31 January 2010.
9. Meanwhile, on 18 March 2009 the State Prosecutor (Prokurator Krajowy) lodged a bill of indictment against the applicant and others with the Łódź Regional Court (case no. IV K 59/09). The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion committed in an organised and armed criminal group. The bill of indictment comprised 94 charges brought against 28 defendants. The prosecution authorities requested that 318 witnesses be heard before the court.
10. On 30 March 2009 the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 31 December 2009. Subsequently, the same court ordered prolongation of his detention on 21 December 2009 (detention extended until 30 September 2010), on 22 September 2010 (detention extended until 31 March 2011) and on 23 March 2011 (detention extended until 30 September 2011).
The applicant’s appeals against those decisions were dismissed by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 22 April 2009, 13 January, 10 November 2010 and 20 May 2011, respectively.
The courts repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by the evidence from other co-accused and witnesses, and on the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on him. They also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. In this regard they emphasised that the case concerned an organised criminal group and was of a complex character.
11. Meanwhile, the court scheduled fifteen hearings for November and December 2009. Due to sick-leaves of the presiding judge and of some of the accused those hearings did not take place.
12. The trial was eventually opened on 18 January 2010. Subsequent scheduled hearings were adjourned due to absences of some of the co‑accused and due to problems with sound system in the court room.
13. In the period from 31 January 2010 until 22 March 2010 the applicant served a prison sentence imposed by the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (case no. III K 2/05).
14. In May 2010 the Regional Court gave a severance order and decided to determine charges against two co-accused separately.
15. The bill of indictment was only finally read out to the defendants at the hearing held on 27 May 2010.
16. At the hearing of 28 May 2010 the Regional Court started taking evidence from the accused. It held fourteen hearings until the end of 2010, during which some of the accused gave evidence. Five of the scheduled hearings were adjourned due to sick-leaves of the accused. One hearing was adjourned because of the motion for disqualification of the presiding judge lodged by one of the co-accused.
17. Subsequently, the Regional Court held hearings on 17 and 18 February; on 5, 21 and 26 April; and on 12 May and 29 July 2011. It continued taking evidence from the defendants.
18. On 17 August 2011 the Łódź Regional Court decided to continue to apply pre-trial detention unless the applicant would pay bail of 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) within two weeks from the date of the decision.
19. On 22 August 2011 the applicant was released on bail and police supervision. He was also prohibited from leaving the country.
20. The criminal proceedings against the applicant are currently pending before the first-instance court.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
21. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre‑trial detention (tymczasowe aresztowanie), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called “preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze) are stated 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 May 2006.
COMPLAINTS
22. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive.
23. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him.
24. Lastly, he invoked Article 14, complaining that he was discriminated vis à vis other co-accused.
THE LAW
A. Alleged violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
25. The applicant complained that the length of his detention on remand had been excessive. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads as follows:
“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.”
26. The Government disputed this argument with reference to the facts of the case. They considered that the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 3. The Government submitted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention was duly justified and that during the entire period the authorities had given relevant and sufficient reasons for prolonging it. Moreover, they maintained that the applicant had been serving at the relevant time several prison sentences resulting from his previous convictions.
27. The applicant’s detention started on 25 September 2007, when he was detained on remand. It continued until 22 August 2011, when the applicant was released.
28. However, between 25 September 2007 and 22 March 2010 the applicant served prison sentences imposed on him in another sets of criminal proceedings. This period, 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.
Accordingly, the period to be taken into consideration lasted from 22 March 2010 until 22 August 2011. It thus amounts to one year, five months and one day.
29. The Court firstly recalls 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, were stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], cited above, § 110 et seq., ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006-..., with further references).
30. 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 need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. As regards the latter, they relied, in particular, on the fact that the case concerned an organised criminal group.
31. The applicant was charged with several counts of extortion committed in an organised and armed criminal group. In the Court’s view, the fact that the case concerned a member of 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).
32. The Court accepts that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant of having committed serious offences could initially warrant his detention. In addition, it notes that the authorities were faced with the difficult task of determining the facts and the degree of alleged responsibility of each of the defendants, who had acted in a criminal group and against whom numerous charges of serious offences were laid.
33. Also, the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, in particular the process of obtaining evidence from the applicant and the applicant’s co-accused, constituted valid grounds for the applicant’s initial detention. The judicial authorities relied on the fact that the applicant had been charged with offences committed in an organised criminal group. In this regard, the Court reiterates that the existence of a general risk flowing from the organised nature of the alleged criminal activities of the applicant may be accepted as the basis for his detention at the initial stages of the proceedings (see Górski v. Poland, no. 28904/02, § 58, 4 October 2005) and in some circumstances also for subsequent extensions of the detention (see Celejewski, cited above, § 37). Indeed, in cases such as the present one concerning organised criminal groups, the risk that a detainee, if released, might bring pressure on other co-accused or otherwise obstruct the proceedings often is, by the nature of things, high.
34. 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).
35. 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. In this context, the Court would, however, observe that the Łódź Regional Court decided to release the applicant on bail on 22 August 2011, as soon as it found that keeping him in detention was no longer necessary (see paragraph 18 above).
36. Having regard to the foregoing, in view of the above findings as to the total length of the applicant’s detention and taking into account the fact that the authorities were faced with the particularly difficult task of trying a case involving an organised criminal group, the Court considers that the grounds given for the applicant’s pre-trial detention were “relevant” and “sufficient” to justify holding him in custody for the entire relevant period.
37. It therefore remains for the Court to ascertain whether the authorities, in dealing with the applicant’s case, displayed the “diligence” required under Article 5 § 3 (see McKay, cited above, § 44). In this regard, it would observe that that the case was very complex and that in the relevant period there were no significant periods of inactivity on the part of the trial court. During the period of one year and some five months the Łódź Regional Court held over twenty hearings and heard evidence from several of the twenty eight defendants in the case (see paragraphs 14-17 above). For these reasons, the Court considers that the domestic authorities displayed “special diligence” in the handling of the applicant’s case.
38. In view of the above considerations, the Court finds that the length of the applicant’s detention does not disclose any appearance of a breach of 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 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
B. Other alleged violations of the Convention
39. The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings. However, he failed to lodge a complaint under 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 przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki). Accordingly, this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
40. Lastly, he complained, invoking Article 14 of the Convention, that pre-trial detention was applied in a discriminatory manner in his case. However, in the light of all the material in its possession, and in so far as the matters complained of are within its competence, the Court finds that they do not disclose any appearance of a violation of the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention or its Protocols.
It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Fatoş AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy