British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
European Court of Human Rights
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
European Court of Human Rights >>
TRZNADEL v. POLAND - 26876/03 [2007] ECHR 56 (16 January 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2007/56.html
Cite as:
[2007] ECHR 56
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF TRZNADEL v. POLAND
(Application
no. 26876/03)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
16
January 2007
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 Trznadel v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr J.
Casadevall,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S.
Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović, judges,
and
Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 12 December 2006,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application (no. 26876/03) 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”) on 6 August 2003 by Mr M. Trznadel (“the
applicant”). He was represented by Mr J. Runowski, a
lawyer practising in Żary.
The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
On
25 October 2006 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 1970 and lives in Wrocław.
On
15 April 1999 the applicant was detained on remand until 14 July 1999
on suspicion of two attempted murders. The court based its detention
order on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the
offences, on the severity of the likely penalty, which gave rise to a
fear that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings, and on the
risk of the applicant’s going into hiding as he had done
previously.
On
an unknown date a bill of indictment was lodged. The applicant was
charged with two attempted murders and possession of an unlicensed
weapon.
Subsequent
decisions on the extension of the applicant’s pre-trial
detention were taken on 10 June 1999, 8 September 1999, 10 December
1999, 9 March 2000, 23 May 2000, 12 December 2000, 14 September 2000,
12 March 2002, 27 June 2002, 13 September 2002, 16 December 2002,
21 March 2003, 27 June 2003 and 16 December 2004.
In
all the above-mentioned decisions the courts relied on the same
grounds for detention as those given in the first detention order. In
some of them the courts also referred to the complexity of the case,
the need to conduct further investigations, the probability of
collusion between the applicant and other co-accused and exertion of
unlawful pressure on witnesses by the applicant. They also stressed
that the applicant had previously gone into hiding.
The
applicant appealed against the decisions extending his detention on
several occasions. All of his appeals were dismissed.
On
many occasions the applicant requested release from detention or the
imposition of a more lenient preventive measure. His requests were
dismissed.
Hearings
were held on the following dates: 9 November 1999, 10 December
1999, 24 February 2000, 9 March 2000, 23 May 2000, 20 June 2000,
21 July 2000, 14 September 2000, 17 October 2000, 16 November
2000, 12 December 2000 and 30 January 2001.
On
2 February 2001 the Legnica Regional Court changed the legal
qualification of the offences and convicted the applicant of
attempted robbery endangering the lives others as well as possession
of a weapon. It sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment. Both
the prosecutor and the applicant lodged appeals.
On
29 April 2002 the Wrocław Court of Appeal quashed the
judgment and remitted the case.
A
hearing was held on 13 September 2002. A hearing of 18 October
2002 was cancelled due to a lay judge’s absence. A hearing of
15 November 2002 was adjourned since the accused who had been
detained had not been transported to the hearing, and a hearing of 17
January 2003 was adjourned since the applicant had challenged the
impartiality of the judges. Subsequent hearings were held on 14
February 2003, 21 March 2003, 25 April 2003, 30 May 2003, 27
June 2003, 12 September 2003, 10 October 2003, 21 November 2003,
5 December 2003 and 14 January 2004.
On
21 January 2004 the Legnica Regional Court gave a judgment. It
convicted the applicant of one attempted murder and acquitted him of
the other attempted murder and possession of an unlicensed weapon.
The prosecutor and the applicant appealed.
On
5 May 2004 the Wrocław Court of Appeal quashed the judgment and
remitted the case.
Subsequent
hearings were held on 28 July 2004, 7 September 2004, 23 September
2004, 12 October 2004, 26 October 2004, 16 November 2004, 23 November
2004, 7 December 2004, 16 December 2004, 11 January 2005, 25 January
2005, 8 February 2005, 1 March 2005, 12 March 2005, 29 March
2005, 10 April 2005, 26 April 2005, 13 May 2005, 31 May 2005 and 21
June 2005.
On
23 June 2005 the Legnica Regional Court convicted the applicant of
two attempted murders and possession of a weapon and sentenced him to
twelve years’ imprisonment. On 9 August 2005 the applicant
lodged an appeal which he had drafted himself. On 16 August 2005 the
applicant appealed through a lawyer.
On
17 February 2006 the Wrocław Court of Appeal upheld the
judgment. The judgment is final.
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 prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other,
so-called “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 pre-trial detention was
in breach of Article 5 § 3, which provides:
“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.”
A. Admissibility
The
Government accepted that the applicant had exhausted domestic
remedies.
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
The
Government were of the opinion that the applicant’s pre-trial
detention had lasted four years and nine months. The applicant did
not present any observations, submitting only his claims for just
satisfaction.
The Government were of the opinion that the whole
period of the applicant’s detention had been justified by the
existence of a genuine public interest, which had outweighed the
presumption of innocence.
They stressed that the domestic courts dealing with
the applicant’s case had found his detention to be compatible
with the provisions of Article 258 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and that no grounds warranting the applicant’s release from
detention as provided for by Article 259 of the Code had been
established.
The Government maintained that the evidence obtained
in the proceedings indicated that there was a reasonable suspicion
that the applicant had committed the offences. They emphasised the
serious nature of the charges and the fact that the applicant had
been sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment.
The
Government also argued that the applicant’s detention had been
aimed at securing the proper conduct of the investigations, as there
had been a risk that he would obstruct the proceedings and influence
witnesses and other co-accused. They drew the Court’s attention
to the fact that many witnesses had refused to give testimony.
With
regard to the review of the applicant’s detention, the
Government pointed out that on each occasion the decisions had been
reasoned in a relevant and sufficient manner.
With
regard to the proceedings on the merits, the Government highlighted
their complexity. They submitted that four co accused had been
involved in the proceedings, they had been charged with nine offences
and the prosecutor had requested thirty-four witnesses to be heard.
1. Principles established under the Court’s
case-law
Under
the Court’s case-law, the issue of whether a period of
detention is reasonable cannot be assessed in abstracto.
Whether it is reasonable for an accused to remain in detention must
be assessed in each case according to its special features. Continued
detention can be justified in a given case only if there are specific
indications of a genuine requirement of public interest which,
notwithstanding the presumption of innocence, outweighs the rule of
respect for individual liberty (see, among other authorities, the W.
v. Switzerland judgment of 26 January 1993, Series A
no. 254-A, p. 15, § 30).
It
falls in the first place to the national judicial authorities to
ensure that, in a given case, the pre-trial detention of an accused
person does not exceed a reasonable time. To this end they must
examine all the facts arguing for or against the existence of a
genuine requirement of public interest justifying, with due regard to
the principle of the presumption of innocence, a departure from the
rule of respect for individual liberty and set them out in their
decisions dismissing the applications for release. It is essentially
on the basis of the reasons given in these decisions and of the
established facts stated by the applicant in his appeals that the
Court is called upon to decide whether or not there has been a
violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see
the Contrada v. Italy judgment of 24 August 1998, Reports
1998-V, p. 2185, § 54; McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC],
no. 543/03, § 43, ECHR 2006- ).
The
persistence of a reasonable suspicion that the person arrested has
committed an offence is a condition sine qua non for the
lawfulness of the continued detention, but after a certain lapse of
time it no longer suffices. In such cases, the Court must establish
whether the other grounds given by the judicial authorities continued
to justify the deprivation of liberty. Where such grounds were
“relevant” and “sufficient”, the Court must
also ascertain whether the competent national authorities displayed
“special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings
(see Labita v. Italy [GC], no. 26772/95, ECHR 2000 IV,
§ 153).
2. Application of those principles to the circumstances
of the present case
The
Court notes that the applicant’s pre-trial detention lasted
four years and eight months (from 15 April 1999 to 2 February 2001,
from 29 April 2002 to 21 January 2004 and from 5 May 2004 to 23
June 2005) and not, as the Government had stated, four years and nine
months. The length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was
substantial.
The
Court is of the opinion that the case was of average complexity. It
did not concern activity of an organised criminal character and the
applicant did not have to reply to multiple charges. The number of
accused persons changed over time from four to two since in respect
of two of them the judgments had become final.
The
Court observes that the investigative phase of the proceedings was
conducted very speedily. Furthermore, the applicant’s detention
was supervised by the courts at regular intervals.
The
Court also notes that hearings were held fairly regularly, although
it also observes that some of them were adjourned for reasons for
which the State can be held responsible, for example the accused who
were detained had not been transported to a hearing of 15 November
2002.
The
Court further notes that the courts amended the legal qualification
of the offences committed by the applicant on several occasions. The
inconsistency of the courts’ views on the qualification to be
given to the offences undoubtedly contributed to the length of
proceedings.
The
Court further observes that in their decisions extending the
detention the domestic authorities repeatedly relied on the same
grounds, namely: a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had
committed the offence in question, the severity of the likely penalty
and the risk that the applicant would obstruct the proper conduct of
the proceedings, in particular by influencing witnesses and other
co-accused and going into hiding. The domestic courts referred to the
risk that the applicant would interfere with the conduct of the
proceedings, but based this perceived risk solely on the severity of
the likely penalty and the risk of his going into hiding. No other
grounds for detention were given in those decisions, notwithstanding
the lapse of time. The decisions themselves were rather laconic.
The
Court therefore considers that, in the particular circumstances of
the instant case, the grounds given by the judicial authorities for
the applicant’s detention did not satisfy the requirement of
being “relevant” and “sufficient”.
In
view of the above considerations, the Court considers that the
applicant’s prolonged detention was in breach of the
“reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of
the Convention.
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 1,000,000 zlotys (PLN), being the equivalent of
262,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage.
The
Government found this claim far too exorbitant and suggested that a
finding of a violation was itself sufficient just satisfaction.
The
Court awards the applicant EUR 1,000 in respect of non pecuniary
damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant, who received legal aid from the Council of Europe in
connection with the presentation of his case, did not claim any costs
or 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 1,000 (one
thousand euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage to be converted
into Polish zlotys at the rate applicable at the date of settlement,
plus any tax that may be chargeable;
(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 16 January 2007, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
