FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36592/03
by Piotr PROTASEWICZ
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 28 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 October 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 Piotr Protasewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1981 and lives in Mysłowice, Poland. 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.
A. The applicant’s pre-trial detention
On 30 January 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed armed robbery. On 1 February 2001 the Tychy District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that he be detained on remand until 30 April 2001. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question, the severity of the anticipated sentence and the fear that he might tamper with evidence.
On 9 April 2001 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 17 July 2001.
From 23 May 2001 to 27 July 2002 the applicant served a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Katowice Regional Court in two other criminal cases against him.
On 9 July 2001 the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) extended the applicant’s detention until 17 October 2001. It relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged, which was supported by evidence of witnesses and experts. The court further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation justified holding him in custody. It referred to the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. It also relied on the risk that the applicant might tamper with evidence.
On 8 October 2001 the Katowice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 17 January 2002. It repeated the grounds previously given for his detention.
On an unspecified date, apparently in January 2002, the applicant was indicted on 11 charges, including offences committed in an organised criminal group before the Tychy District Court. The bill of indictment listed 44 charges of offences committed in an organised criminal group brought against the 4 accused. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 58 witnesses.
On 15 January 2002 the Tychy District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 17 July 2002. On 8 July 2002 it extended that period up to 17 October 2002. On 16 October 2002 the court ordered that the term should further be prolonged until 17 January 2003. The court relied on the grounds stated in the previous decisions.
In 2003 the trial court listed 16 hearings, of which 10 had to be adjourned.
On 2 January 2003 the Tychy District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 January 2003. It repeated the grounds that had been given in the previous decisions and added that the case was complex, given the number of accused and the parties injured. It further submitted that the trial had not begun due to many obstacles for which the court was not responsible.
On 22 January 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), on an application from the trial court, prolonged the applicant’s detention until 26 June 2003. It repeated the grounds previously given for the applicant’s detention. It also found that there were no special grounds, as specified in Article 259 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that would justify lifting the detention and imposing a less severe measure.
The first hearing on the merits was held on 30 January 2003.
From 14 to 28 February 2003 the applicant served a sentence of imprisonment imposed by the Mysłowice Regional Court in other criminal proceedings.
On 25 June 2003, on an application from the Tychy District Court, the Katowice Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 26 October 2003. It also acknowledged the delay in the proceedings and asked the trial court to expedite the examination of the case.
On 22 October 2003 the Katowice Court of Appeal, on an application from the Tychy District Court, prolonged the applicant’s detention until 26 January 2004. It also stated that the proceedings were inordinately lengthy.
In 2004 the trial court held 7 hearings.
On 7 January 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal, on an application from the trial court, prolonged the applicant’s detention until 26 March 2004. On 17 March 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal, on an application from the trial court, prolonged the applicant’s detention until 26 May 2004. It stated that the delays in the proceedings were to a large extent caused by the failure to escort the accused to the court and lack of discipline on the part of the parties to the proceedings.
It appears that in the course of the proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and decisions extending his detention.
On 9 April 2004 the Tychy District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 7 years’ imprisonment. He appealed. The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged on three occasions.
On 11 February 2005 the Katowice Regional Court amended the trial court’s judgment, acquitted the applicant of the charge of acting in an organised criminal group and reduced the applicant’s sentence to 6 years’ imprisonment.
The applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy).
B. The proceedings concerning a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time
On 10 March 2005 the applicant lodged with the Katowice Regional Court a complaint about a breach of the right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. He relied on the 2004 Act. On 18 May 2005 the Regional Court dismissed his complaint. The court examined the course of the impugned proceedings and held that there were no delays for which the District Court could be held responsible.
C. Censorship of the applicant’s correspondence
On 16 April 2004 the Court received the applicant’s letter of 29 March 2004. The envelope bears the stamp “District Court in Tychy, censored” (Sąd Rejonowy w Tychach, Cenzurowano), the following handwriting: “Z: bez”, an illegible signature, and a hand-written date: “1.4.04”.
THE LAW
On 18 September 2006 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:
“I, Piotr Protasewicz, note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 10,000 (ten thousand Polish zlotys) 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 6 October 2006 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:
“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay 10,000 Polish zlotys (ten thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Piotr Protasewicz 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, the application to the case of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy