FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33544/09
by Marek SŁONECKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 31 January 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Päivi Hirvelä,
George Nicolaou,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 June 2009,
Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 8 September 2011 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Marek Słonecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1977 and is currently detained in Gdańsk Remand Centre. He was represented before the Court by Mr A. Kiczka, a lawyer practising in Gdańsk. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
2. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant and supplemented by the Government, may be summarised as follows.
3. On 18 July 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug trafficking, membership of an armed and organised criminal group and illegal possession of dangerous materials and detained on remand. In its decision to detain the applicant, the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the aforementioned offences. It attached particular importance to the likelihood that a severe sentence of imprisonment would be imposed on the applicant and to the risk that he would attempt to obstruct the proceedings.
4. The applicant’s detention on remand was extended by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 3 October 2006, 4 January 2007, 12 April 2007, 21 June 2007 and on later unspecified dates in December 2007 and in June 2008. Subsequently, it was extended by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 16 July 2008, 14 October 2008, 9 December 2008, 24 March 2009, 24 June 2009, 23 September 2009, 25 November 2009, 29 December 2009 and on 2 February 2010. The applicant’s appeals against some of the above decisions were dismissed by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 4 July 2007, 13 August 2008, 12 November 2008, 13 January 2009, 21 April 2009, 15 July 2009, 22 December 2009 and on 24 February 2010.
5. In their decisions to extend the applicant’s detention, the authorities repeatedly stated that the initial grounds invoked in the detention order continued to apply. They moreover pointed to the need to obtain supplementary evidence and to the complexity of the case which concerned thirteen accused, one hundred and twenty witnesses and involved the examination of more than ninety volumes of documents.
6. The courts concluded that in the specific context of the applicant’s case which concerned organised drug trafficking, detention on remand constituted the only security measure capable of guaranteeing the proper conduct of the proceedings. They also noted that there were no special circumstances, health-related, family-related or otherwise, militating in favour of the applicant’s release.
7. Until 27 September 2006 the applicant was serving a concurrent sentence of imprisonment, imposed in another set of criminal proceedings.
8. On 15 June 2007 the bill of indictment was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court. On 5 October 2007 the trial court requested the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor to rectify certain procedural shortcomings in the bill. On 16 October 2007 the completed bill of indictment was lodged with the Gdańsk Regional Court.
9. On 19 March 2010 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to nine years’ imprisonment. It appears that the applicant’s conviction has not been quashed to date and that he continues to be detained on remand.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
10. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre‑trial detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other “preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze) are set out 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).
COMPLAINT
11. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand had been excessive.
THE LAW
12. The applicant complained about the length of his pre-trial detention. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides 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.”
13. By a letter dated 8 September 2011 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issue raised by the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention.
14. The declaration provided as follows:
“The Government agree in general with the presentation of facts included in the statement of facts prepared by the Court’s Registry on 23 February 2011.
(...) In these circumstances, the Government hereby wish to express – by way of the unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the violation of reasonableness of the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. Simultaneously, the Government declare that they are ready to pay the applicant the amount of 4,000 PLN. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage, as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It 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 Government consider that the offered sum of 4,000 PLN is in accordance with the Court’s case-law.
(...) The Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as ‘any other reason’ justifying the striking out of the case of the Court’s list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.”
15. The applicant did not comment on the Government’s declaration.
16. The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article 37 § 1 (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if
“for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”.
17. It also recalls that, in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application, or part thereof, under Article 37 § 1(c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued.
18. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment (Tahsin Acar v. Turkey [GC], no. 26307/95, §§ 75-77, 6 May 2003).
19. The Court has established in a number of cases, including those brought against Poland, its practice concerning complaints of a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention as regards the unreasonable length of pre‑trial detention (see Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, 3 February 2009, with further references).
20. Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government’s declaration, as well as the compensation proposed in the amount of 4,000 PLN – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1(c)).
21. Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine).
22. Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government’s declaration and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
Lawrence EarlyDavid Thór Björgvinsson
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy