Communicated on 20 May 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 6612/11
Rafał SADŁO
against Poland
lodged on 22 November 2010
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Rafał Sadło, is a Polish national who was born in 1978 and is currently in detention in Kielce.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
In 2000 the applicant was charged with many counts of car theft and forgery (case no. II K 180/00). The bill of indictment concerning those charges was not served on him.
On 2 May 2000 the Starachowice District Court convicted him as charged. The applicant appealed.
On 2 July 2001 the applicant sent a letter to the Starachowice District Court asking to be served with a copy of the bill of indictment or a copy of the judgment of 2 May 2000.
On 10 July 2001, the court replied that the documents could not be sent as the case file had in the meantime been sent to the Kielce Regional Court, together with the appeal against the first-instance judgment.
On an unknown later date, the Kielce Regional Court gave judgment, quashed the first-instance decision and remitted the case to the Starachowice District Court.
On 4 August 2003 the applicant again asked to be served with a copy of the bill of indictment (II K 180/00). On 12 August 2003 the presiding judge made a note on his request, “send a copy of the bill of indictment”. However, the applicant never received the document.
In 2004 the applicant was also charged with escaping from lawful custody (case no. II K 280/04), but the bill of indictment for that charge was also not served on him.
On 26 April 2005 the Starachowice District Court convicted the applicant as charged.
On 27 April 2007 the Kielce Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case.
Subsequently, the bill of indictment was modified in order to include all the charges against the applicant (including escaping from lawful custody). A copy of the new bill of indictment (case no. II K 333/07) was only served on the applicant’s lawyer.
On 16 January 2008 the Starachowice District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of one of the charges.
On 6 October 2008 the Starachowice District Court gave judgment and convicted the applicant of numerous counts of car theft, several counts of extortion, the forgery of documents and escaping from lawful custody. It also acquitted the applicant of some of the charges. The applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.
The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment, alleging, amongst many other things, that he had not received copies of the bills of indictment (II K 180/00 and II K 280/04) and that the modified bill of indictment (II K 333/07) had only been served on his lawyer.
On 22 January 2010 the Kielce Regional Court amended the judgment and sentenced the applicant to five years’ imprisonment. The court noted that the applicant’s appeal was: “very detailed and concerned numerous incidental matters which are not relevant for the judicial review of the judgment that has been appealed against”.
On 22 March 2010 the applicant’s lawyer filed a cassation appeal against that judgment. In particular, he alleged a breach of the applicant’s procedural rights because he had not been served with two bills of indictment (II K 180/00 and II K 280/04). He further stressed that in view of the many charges against the applicant, a lack of the copies of the bills of indictment meant that the applicant had not been aware of the factual and legal basis of the charges against him. Consequently, he had not been able to prepare an adequate defence. The lawyer noted that the serving of the bill of indictment was not just a technical act but involved an accused person’s procedural rights.
On 5 May 2010 the Regional Prosecutor in Kielce submitted his response to the applicant’s cassation appeal. The prosecutor noted that the applicant had alleged a breach of his procedural rights, but argued that those circumstances had not been relevant for the judicial review of the judgment that had been appealed against.
On 12 August 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. In reply to the applicant’s allegation that his right to defence had been breached, the court referred to the regional prosecutor’s submissions.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
The Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far as relevant provides:
Article 338
Ҥ 1. If a bill of indictment complies with the formal requirements, the president of the court shall order that a copy be served on the accused, asking him to file evidentiary submissions within a seven-day period. ...
§ 2. The accused shall have the right, within 7 days of the notification of the bill of indictment, to submit a written response, of which right he should be informed.”
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b) that he was not informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him and consequently did not have an opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
Did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of the criminal charges against him, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular:
a) Was the applicant informed promptly and in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation made against him, as required by Article 6 § 3 (a) of the Convention? Reference is made to the fact that two bills of indictment (II K 180/00 and II K 280/04) were not served on him.
b) Was the applicant afforded adequate time and facilities to prepare his defense, as required by Article 6 § 3 (b) of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy