Communicated on 5 January 2016
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 74568/11
Arkadiusz WRONA
against Poland
lodged on 30 November 2011
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Arkadiusz Wrona, is a Polish national, who was born in 1979 and lives in Warsaw. He is represented before the Court by Ms W. Pasik, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was suspected of domestic violence. In the course of criminal proceedings against him, on 20 August 2004 the Warsaw District Court ordered him to undergo a psychiatric assessment in a psychiatric hospital. On 11 April 2005 the applicant was brought by the police to the Warsaw Psychiatric Hospital in order to undergo the psychiatric assessment. However, he refused to stay and left the waiting room. He was subsequently ordered to come to the hospital on 18 April 2005, on pain of detention on remand. On 18 April 2005 the applicant came to the hospital. However, he refused to stay for the assessment, explaining that he had many urgent matters to attend to.
On 7 June 2005 the Warsaw District Court ordered the applicant’s detention on remand. The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged. In addition, there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings or that he would go into hiding. The court noted that the applicant’s mother had admitted that he had been coming home late in the evening and leaving early in the morning. Furthermore, the applicant had failed to comply with the court order of 20 August 2004 to undergo a six‑week psychiatric assessment.
An appeal lodged by the applicant was dismissed by the Warsaw Regional Court on 20 September 2005. The court mainly referred to the fact that the applicant had still to undergo a psychiatric assessment.
The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged on the following dates: 28 September 2005 (until 4 January 2006), 27 December 2005 (until 4 February 2006), 1 February 2006 (until 4 March 2006). The court relied on the grounds previously invoked. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against all those decisions.
The applicant underwent a psychiatric assessment between 18 November 2005 and 1 February 2006.
On 3 February 2006 the bill of indictment was lodged with the Warsaw District Court. The applicant was charged with domestic violence and possession of 1.15 grams of marijuana.
On 16 February 2006 the Warsaw District Court again extended the applicant’s detention (until 4 May 2006). The court stressed that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings and that he would go into hiding. In addition, the court relied on the complications caused by the applicant’s repeated refusal to undergo a psychiatric assessment.
During a hearing held on 23 March 2006 the applicant’s father and sister refused to testify. The applicant was released from detention on the same day. Subsequently, on 5 April 2006, the applicant’s mother also refused to testify.
On 12 March 2007 the Warsaw District Court gave judgment and acquitted the applicant on charges of domestic violence and convicted him of possession of marijuana.
Following the applicant’s appeal, the judgment was quashed and the proceedings were subsequently discontinued by the Warsaw District Court on 6 November 2007. The court found that the prohibited act committed by the applicant had not constituted an offence because of its insignificant social consequences (znikoma szkodliwość społeczna czynu).
The applicant subsequently instituted proceedings for compensation for unjustified detention under Article 552 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“the CCP”). He stated that while the main reason for his detention on remand had been a six-week psychiatric assessment, he had been kept in detention for nearly one year. Moreover, the assessment had begun only five months after his arrest. He also stressed that there had been no risk that he would have attempted to obstruct the proceedings.
His claim was dismissed by the Warsaw Regional Court on 18 March 2010. The court referred at the outset to the Supreme Court’s Resolution of 15 September 1999. It further noted that in the present case there had been no breach of procedural provisions of Chapter 28 of the CCP since the detention on remand had been applied in view of the applicant’s repeated refusal to undergo a court-ordered psychiatric assessment. Consequently, the applicant’s detention on remand had been undoubtedly justified, even though eventually he had ultimately not been convicted.
On 16 July 2010 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. The court repeated the reasons given by the Regional Court. It stressed that the applicant had clearly obstructed the proceedings by refusing to undergo a psychiatric assessment. Furthermore, there had been a risk that he could have gone into hiding. Lastly, the court noted that as soon as the applicant’s parents and sister had refused to testify, the applicant had been released.
On 31 May 2011 an appeal by the applicant on points of law was refused a hearing by the Supreme Court.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
1. Code of Criminal Procedure
Article 552 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides:
“1 An accused who, as a result of the reopening of proceedings or an appeal on points of law, has been acquitted or re‑sentenced under a more lenient provision, shall be entitled to receive from the State Treasury compensation for the pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage which he/she has suffered as a result of having served all or part of the sentence unjustifiably imposed on him/her.
2. The provisions of paragraph 1 shall also be applicable if, after the sentencing judgment has been overturned or declared null and void, the proceedings have been discontinued by reason of material circumstances not duly considered in prior proceedings.
3. A right to compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage shall also arise if a preventive measure has been applied under the conditions specified in paragraphs 1 and 2.
4. A right to compensation for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage shall also arise in the event of undoubtedly unjustified [niewątpliwie niesłuszne] pre‑trial detention or arrest.”
2. Case-law of the Supreme Court
In accordance with the Supreme Court’s Resolution of 15 September 1999 (no. I KZP 27/99), “undoubtedly unjustified” pre‑trial detention was detention effected in breach of the provisions of Chapter 28 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and which caused hardship which the defendant should not have suffered in the light of the totality of the circumstances established in the case and, in particular, of those established in the final ruling.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the unlawfulness of his detention on remand.
2. He further alleges, under Article 5 § 3, that his detention on remand lasted excessively long.
3. Lastly, he complains, under Article 5 § 5, that despite being unlawfully detained he had not received any compensation.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention?
2. Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
3. Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his detention in alleged contravention of Articles 5 § 1 and 5 § 3, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Włoch v. Poland (no. 2), no. 33475/08, 10 May 2011)?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy