[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF PIOTROWSKI v. POLAND
(Application
no. 45217/06)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
20 May
2008
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Piotrowski v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján
Šikuta,
Ledi
Bianku, judges,
and Lawrence
Early,
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 29 April 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 45217/06) against the
Republic of Poland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Polish national, Mr Tomasz
Piotrowski (“the applicant”), on 23 October 2006.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
29 May 2007 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29
§ 3 of the Convention, it was decided to examine the merits of
the application at the same time as its admissibility.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant, Mr Tomasz Piotrowski, is a Polish national who was born
in 1966 and lives in Łódź.
Criminal proceedings against the
applicant and his detention on remand
- On 30 April 2003 the applicant was arrested on
suspicion of aiding and abetting robbery committed by an organised
criminal group. On that day the Łódź District Court
(Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. It relied on
the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence
with which he had been charged. The court also considered that there
was a risk that he might obstruct the proceedings since evidence
given by him was contradictory to the material gathered by the
prosecution. It referred to the likelihood of a severe prison
sentence being imposed on the applicant and the need to secure the
proper conduct of the proceedings.
- On
18 July 2003 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd
Okręgowy) extended the applicant's detention until
30 September 2003. It relied on the likelihood of a severe
prison sentence being imposed on the applicant and the complexity of
the case. It also stressed that his detention was justified by the
need to obtain further evidence, in particular to obtain expert
reports, to take evidence from witnesses and to arrest all members of
the criminal group.
- On
26 September 2003 the Łódź Regional Court extended
the applicant's detention until 17 February 2004. It relied on the
reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence
with which he had been charged. It referred to the complexity of the
case and the need to obtain further evidence, in particular to obtain
expert reports and take evidence from witnesses. It further
considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the
proceedings justified holding him in custody.
- The
applicant's detention was subsequently extended by the Łódź
Regional Court on 23 January 2004. The court repeated the
grounds given in its previous decisions.
- On
9 March 2004 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Łódź
Regional Court. The bill of indictment comprised eighty-three charges
brought against seventeen defendants. The applicant was charged with
several counts of aiding and abetting robbery committed by members of
an organised criminal group.
- On
16 March and 1 December 2004 the Łódź Regional Court
extended the applicant's detention. The court relied on the grounds
stated in the previous decisions.
- On
26 April 2005 the Łódź Court of Appeal (Sąd
Apelacyjny) extended the applicant's detention until
31 August 2005. On 10 August the court ordered that
the term should be extended further, until 31 December 2005.
On 29 December 2005 it ordered that the applicant be kept
in custody until 31 March 2006. The next decision was given
on 22 March 2006; it extended the applicant's detention
until 30 June 2006.
- The
court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had
committed the offences with which he had been charged. It
also referred to the likelihood of a severe prison
sentence being imposed on him and to the complexity of the case.
- On
28 June 2006 the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the
applicant's detention until 31 August 2006. The court repeated the
grounds given in the previous decisions.
- In
the course of the investigation and the court proceedings the
applicant made numerous, but unsuccessful, applications for release
and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release
him and against decisions extending his detention.
- Between
25 October 2004 and 16 August 2006 the court held
seventy-six hearings.
- On 23 August 2006 the Łódź Regional
Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to five
years' imprisonment and a fine. He appealed. The applicant's
detention was subsequently extended on two occasions.
- On 20 December 2007 the applicant was released from
detention.
- The proceedings are currently pending before the court
of second instance.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of
detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for
its extension, release from detention and rules governing other
“preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze)
are stated 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
August 2006.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of his detention had been
excessive. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention, which, in so far as relevant, reads 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.”
- The
Government contested that argument.
A. Admissibility
- The Court notes that the application is not manifestly
ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the
Convention. It further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other
grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. Period to be taken into consideration
- The
applicant's detention started on 30 April 2003, when he was arrested
on suspicion of aiding and abetting robbery. On 23 August 2006 the
Regional Court convicted him as charged.
From
that date on he was detained “after conviction by a competent
court”, within the meaning of Article 5 § 1 (a) and,
consequently, that period of his detention falls outside the scope of
Article 5 § 3 (see Kudła v. Poland [GC], no.
30210/96, § 104, ECHR 2000-XI).
- Accordingly,
the period to be taken into consideration amounts to 3 years,
3 months and 24 days.
2. The parties' submissions
(a) The applicant
- The
applicant argued that the length of his detention had been
unreasonable. Furthermore, he stressed that he had not been accused
of being a member of an organised criminal group.
(b) The Government
- The
Government first presented some statistical data, indicating that in
the years 2000-2005 the number of indictments and convictions in
cases concerning organised crime had increased both in absolute terms
and in relation to other crimes. In 2004 there were 617 indictments
in such cases and 220 persons were convicted. They argued that in
organised crime cases the authorities were faced with particular
problems relating to the taking and assessment of evidence and
various logistical issues.
- With
reference to the present case, the
Government submitted that the applicant's detention had not been
unreasonably lengthy. They argued that there had been valid reasons
for holding him in detention for the entire period in question. They
stressed that the applicant's detention had been justified by the
strong suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had
been charged and the fact that the seriousness of the charge against
him attracted a heavy sentence. They further
argued that the applicant's detention had been warranted by the risk
that he would obstruct the proper
conduct of the proceedings, in particular by tampering with evidence.
28. Lastly,
the Government justified the length of the applicant's detention
by the complexity of the case, which stemmed from the number of
defendants, the charges brought against them and the fact that the
applicant had committed the crime in the ambit of the activities of
an organised criminal group. The
Government maintained that the authorities had displayed adequate
diligence and dealt speedily with the applicant's case.
3. The Court's assessment
(a) General principles
- The
Court reiterates that the general principles regarding the right to
trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as
guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, were stated in a
number of its previous judgements (see, among many other authorities,
Kudła, cited above, § 110 et seq.; and McKay
v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR
2006-..., with further references).
(b) Application of the above principles in
the present case
- In
their detention decisions, the authorities, in addition to the
reasonable suspicion against the applicant, relied principally on
three grounds, namely (1) the need to secure the proper conduct of
the proceedings, (2) the severity of the penalty to which he was
liable; and (3) the complexity of the case (see paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8
and 12 above).
- The
applicant was charged with numerous counts of aiding and abetting
robbery committed by members of an organised criminal group (see
paragraph 9 above). However, the applicant himself was not charged
with being a member of such a group.
- The
Court accepts that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant of
having committed serious offences could initially warrant his
detention. Also, the need to obtain voluminous evidence constituted
valid grounds for the applicant's initial detention.
- Furthermore,
according to the authorities, the likelihood of a severe sentence
being imposed on the applicant created a presumption that the
applicant would obstruct the proceedings. However, the Court would
reiterate that, while the severity of the sentence faced is a
relevant element in assessment of the risk of absconding or
reoffending, the seriousness of the charges cannot by itself justify
long periods of detention (see, for instance, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria,
no. 33977/96, §§ 80-81, 26 July 2001).
- As
regards the risk of interfering with witnesses or obstructing the
proceedings by other unlawful means, the Court cannot accept that it
constituted relevant and sufficient grounds for the entire period in
question. Firstly, it notes that the judicial authorities appeared to
presume such risks on the basis of the likelihood of a severe penalty
being imposed on the applicant and on the nature of the offences in
question (see, in particular, the District Court's decision of 30
April 2003, in paragraph 5 above). It notes however that the relevant
decisions did not put forward any argument capable of showing that
these fears were well-founded. The Court considers that such a
generally formulated risk flowing from the nature of the offences
with which the applicant was charged may possibly be accepted as the
basis for his detention at the initial stages of the proceedings.
Nevertheless, in the absence of any other factor capable of showing
that the risk of interfering with witnesses actually existed, the
Court cannot accept that ground as a justification for holding the
applicant in custody for the entire period in question.
- Having
regard to the foregoing, even taking into account the fact that the
courts were faced with the particularly difficult task of trying a
case involving an organised criminal group, the Court concludes that
the grounds given by the domestic authorities could not justify the
overall period of the applicant's detention. In these circumstances
it is not necessary to examine whether the proceedings were conducted
with special diligence.
There
has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the
Convention.
II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 65,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and EUR
100,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government maintained that the claimed sum was exorbitant and highly
speculative.
39. The Court does not discern any causal link between the
violation found and the pecuniary damage alleged; it therefore
rejects this claim. On the other hand, it considers that the
applicant has suffered non-pecuniary damage which is not sufficiently
compensated by the finding of a violation of the Convention.
Considering the circumstances of the case and making its assessment
on an equitable basis, the Court awards the applicant EUR 1,000
under this head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant submitted no claim for costs and expenses.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the application admissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
5 § 3 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 1,000 (one
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage, plus any tax that
may be chargeable, to be converted into Polish zlotys at the rate
applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that
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;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 20 May 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
