Communicated on 24 March 2020
Published on 18 May 2020
FIRST SECTION
Application no. 10932/18
Damian ZUBEL
against Poland
lodged on 22 February 2018
STATEMENT OF FACTS
The applicant, Mr Damian Zubel, is a Polish national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Koszalin. He is represented before the Court by Ms M. Kucznier, a lawyer practising in Gdańsk.The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 12 April 2015 the applicant was arrested by the police, on suspicion of setting fire to a house belonging to his partner’s parents. It was alleged that, the day before, after consuming a large quantity of alcohol, the applicant had argued with his girlfriend, with whom he lived at the time. He had become agitated because she had refused to sleep in the same room with him. He had threatened his girlfriend and her parents, saying that they would regret that moment. His girlfriend’s mother had allegedly encouraged her daughter to sleep with the applicant in order to end the argument. After that, the applicant had allegedly ignited the bedsheets with an unknown substance, had jumped out of the window and had gone to his neighbour’s house to continue drinking. Upon entering his neighbour’s house he had immediately said what he had just done and the neighbour had alerted the family about the fire, which was extinguished by firemen.
The applicant had been apprehended on site and was subsequently charged with arson and attempted murder. The case was joined with an investigation into the applicant driving a car under the influence of alcohol two months earlier. On 14 April 2015 the Koszalin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) placed the applicant in detention on remand for three months. The court reasoned that there was a high suspicion of the applicant’s guilt and, in the light of a potentially lengthy prison sentence being imposed, it was possible that the applicant might attempt to obstruct proceedings.
The detention on remand had subsequently been extended every three months by the Koszalin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). On 10 February 2016 the court dismissed an interlocutory appeal (zażalenie) lodged by the applicant’s lawyer. When extending the detention on remand, the court relied on the fact that the applicant was in a relationship with one of the victims, knew her family and thus could have attempted to influence their testimonies had he been set free. Moreover, the court referred to the fact that the applicant had failed to appear for questioning in the case concerning him driving under the influence of alcohol, which further substantiated the risk of obstruction of justice.
The bill of indictment was lodged by the Koszalin District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) on 21 March 2016 with the Koszalin Regional Court. The applicant was charged with arson and attempted murder. The bill of indictment also contained charges of an assault on a public official (police officer), obstruction of an official activity and criminal threats. The latter charges were apparently heard in a separate set of proceedings, whose outcome is unknown.
The first hearing took place on 31 August 2016. On 18 October 2016 the applicant was convicted of arson and attempted murder and sentenced to twelve years in prison.
On 10 January 2017 the Szczecin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention on remand for another three months. On 2 February 2017 it dismissed an interlocutory appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer.
On 8 March 2017 the same court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. It found that the identified shortcomings amounted to a gross procedural injustice. In particular, it relied on the fact that the court‑appointed fire marshal (biegły z zakresu pożarnictwa) had a conflict of interest and there were serious doubts as to his impartiality. It also found that there was no evidence to prove that the applicant had intended to kill anyone. For these reasons, the appellate court ordered that the entire proceedings be repeated.
On 10 March 2017 the applicant’s lawyer requested the detention on remand be lifted. Her request was dismissed and as the court had found that the proceedings had to be repeated in their entirety there was an increased risk of obstruction of justice. Finally, on 22 November 2017 the Koszalin Regional Court conditionally extended the detention on remand for another three months, unless the applicant paid 30,000 Polish zlotys (PLN), (7,500 euros (EUR)). The applicant complied and was released on 27 November 2017. He was ordered to report regularly to a police station and was prohibited from approaching and/or contacting the victims.
On 25 July 2019 he was convicted of destruction of property and sentenced to three years in prison, with the period of his detention on remand (two years, seven months and fourteen days) being considered as time served. He was also ordered to pay PLN 44,000 (EUR 11,000) in pecuniary compensation to his victims. His lawyer appealed against that judgment on 19 August 2019, and the Koszalin District Prosecutor appealed the following day. The appellate proceedings are pending before the Szczecin Court of Appeal.Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other so-called “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); Celejewski v. Poland (no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006); and Kauczor v. Poland (no. 45219/06, § 25-33, 3 February 2009).
COMPLAINT
The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand, which lasted for two years, two months and twenty-four days (excluding the period following the applicant’s initial conviction).
QUESTION TO THE PARTIES
Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy