[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF DROZDOVS v. POLAND
(Application
no. 35367/05)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
22 July
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 Drozdovs v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Giovanni Bonello,
President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David
Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Ledi
Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 1 July 2008,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 35367/05) 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 Latvian national, Mr Igors
Drozdovs (“the applicant”), on 14 September 2005.
- The
Polish Government were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz,
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
- The
applicant alleged, in particular, that his pre-trial detention had
exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of
Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
- On
16 January 2007 the
Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to
communicate the complaint concerning the length of the applicant's
pre-trial detention to the Government. Under the provisions of
Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it 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 was born in 1965 and is presently detained in Gdańsk,
Poland.
- On 28 May 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police
while crossing the Latvian-Polish border. On 29 May 2001 he was
questioned by the police. On 30 May 2001 the applicant was heard
by a prosecutor and was charged with robbery committed while acting
in an organised criminal gang.
- On
30 May 2001 the Gdańsk District Court decided to place the
applicant in pre-trial detention in view of the reasonable suspicion
that he had committed armed robberies as a member of an organised
criminal gang.
- On
17 August 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court extended the
applicant's detention relying, in addition to the grounds originally
given, on the risk that the applicant would interfere with the course
of the proceedings, since the leader of the organised gang had not
yet been arrested.
- On
13 November and 18 December 2001 the applicant's detention was
extended by the same court. It based its decision on the risk that a
severe sentence would be imposed, which made it probable that the
applicant would interfere with the course of the proceedings.
Moreover, the court relied on the complexity of the case, as it
concerned organised crime.
- Subsequently,
the applicant's pre-trial detention was extended, inter alia,
on 21 March 2002 and 19 March 2003. The Regional Court reiterated the
original grounds given for detention and held that keeping the
applicant in custody was necessary for securing the evidence. In the
latter decision the court considered that although the investigation
had been lengthy, it had been justified by the complexity of the
case.
- Afterwards,
as the length of the applicant's detention had reached the statutory
time limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego),
the Regional Court applied to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd
Apelacyjny) asking for the applicant's detention to be extended
beyond that term. On 19 March, 27 June and 17 December 2003
the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed the application and extended
his pre trial detention. The Court of Appeal based its decisions
on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious
offences and on the risk that he might interfere with the course of
justice. The court further considered that the complexity of the case
constituted an extraordinary circumstance justifying his continued
detention. The court also referred to the fact that the applicant did
not have a permanent place of residence in Poland.
- In
the meantime, on 16 June 2003, the applicant and 14 other co accused
were indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court.
- In
2004 the applicant's detention was extended by decisions of the
Gdansk Court of Appeal given on 16 June and 28 December. The court
reiterated the grounds given previously.
- On
14 June and 22 November 2005 the applicant's detention was further
extended. The court observed that the period of detention had been
excessive given the complexity of the case and the need to ensure the
proper conduct of the final stages of the trial.
- On
22 February 2006 the applicant's detention was further extended. The
applicant's numerous applications for release and appeals against the
decisions extending his detention were to no avail.
- During
the entire proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful
applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully,
against the decisions extending his detention.
- On
30 May 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave judgment. The court
convicted the applicant and sentenced him to seven years'
imprisonment. It appears that the applicant requested that the
reasoned judgment be served on him with a view to lodging an appeal.
- It
appears that the proceedings are pending before the Court of Appeal.
The applicant remains in detention.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of
pre-trial detention (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 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 pre-trial 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 this complaint 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 28 May 2001, when he was arrested on
suspicion of having committed robberies acting in an organised
criminal gang. On 30 May 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court
convicted him as charged.
Accordingly,
the period to be taken into consideration amounts to five years and
two days.
2. The parties' submissions
- The
applicant submitted in general that he had been kept in detention
pending trial for an unjustified period of time.
- The
Government considered that the applicant's pre-trial detention
satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 3. It was justified by
“relevant” and “sufficient” grounds. Those
grounds were, in particular, the gravity of the charges against the
applicant, who had been accused of membership of an organised
criminal gang. They further underlined the complexity of the case,
which had involved nineteen co-accused, against whom ninety charges
had been laid.
The
Government argued that the domestic authorities had shown due
diligence, as required in cases against detained persons, and that
the length of the applicant's detention was attributable to the
exceptional complexity of the 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, have been set out
in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other
authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96,
§ 110 et seq, ECHR 2000 XI, 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 serious nature of the offences with
which he had been charged, (2) the need to secure the proper conduct
of the proceedings and (3) the unusual complexity of the proceedings.
The
authorities assessed as high the risk that the applicant might hamper
the proper course of the proceedings; however, they did not refer to
any specific grounds to justify their opinion.
- The
applicant was charged with several counts of armed robbery committed
as a member of an organised criminal group (see paragraph 7 above).
In
the Court's view, the fact that the case concerned a member of such a
criminal group should be taken into account in assessing compliance
with Article 5 § 3 (see Bąk v. Poland, no. 7870/04,
§ 57, 16 January 2007).
- The
Court accepts that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant of
having committed serious offences warranted his initial detention.
Also, the need to obtain a large volume of evidence and to determine
the degree of the alleged responsibility of each of the defendants
against whom numerous charges of serious offences had been laid,
constituted valid grounds for the applicant's initial detention.
- Indeed,
in cases such as the present one concerning organised criminal
groups, the risk that a detainee, if released, might bring pressure
to bear on witnesses or other co-accused or might otherwise obstruct
the proceedings often is, by the nature of things, high. In this
connection, however, the Court notes that there is no appearance that
the applicant made attempts to intimidate witnesses during the
proceedings or tried to delay or disrupt the trial.
- 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 the assessment of the risk of absconding or
re-offending, the gravity of the charges cannot by itself justify
long periods of pre-trial detention (see Michta v. Poland,
no. 13425/02, §§ 49, 4 May 2006).
- While
all the above factors could justify even a relatively long period of
detention, they did not give the domestic courts unlimited power to
extend the measure.
- The
Court further notes that there is no specific indication that the
authorities, at any point during the applicant's pre-trial detention,
considered the possibility of imposing on him other preventive
measures – such as bail or police supervision – expressly
foreseen by Polish law to secure the proper conduct of the criminal
proceedings.
In
this context the Court would emphasise that under Article 5 § 3
the authorities, when deciding whether a person should be released or
detained, are obliged to consider alternative means of ensuring his
appearance at the trial. Indeed, that Article lays down not only the
right to “trial within a reasonable time or release pending
trial” but also provides that “release may be conditioned
by guarantees to appear for trial” (see Jabłoński
v. Poland, no. 33492/96, § 83, 21 December 2000).
- 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 91,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and EUR
120,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
- The
Government considered that these claims were excessive and as such
should be rejected. They asked the Court to rule that a finding of a
violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction.
- 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 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 2,000 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 remainder of 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 2,000 (two
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 22 July 2008, pursuant to
Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Giovanni Bonello
Deputy
Registrar President
