European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Wieslaw DAWLUSZEWICZ v Poland - 24338/06 [2010] ECHR 118 (12 January 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/118.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 118
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no.
24338/06
by Wiesław DAWLUSZEWICZ
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas
Bratza,
President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Ján
Šikuta,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Nebojša
Vučinić,
judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 May 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations submitted by the applicant in reply,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Wiesław Dawluszewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Gdańsk. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 23 May 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police.
On 24 May 2005 the Gdańsk District Court decided to detain the applicant on suspicion of having committed several burglaries at the Gdańsk Refinery, acting as part of an organised criminal gang. The court considered, given the likelihood that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant, that there was a risk that he would interfere with the proper course of the proceedings.
On 4 July 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor dismissed a request by the applicant to be released from detention, relying on the ground that the applicant’s brother was being sought by the police.
On 19 August 2005 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention, relying on the ground given previously. It noted, however, that since his arrest no investigative actions had been taken; thus, it instructed the prosecuting authorities to expedite the investigation.
On 8 November 2005 the applicant and ten co-accused were indicted before the Gdańsk District Court.
On 21 November 2005 the detention of the applicant and six co-accused was further extended. The District Court stated that the trial had not yet started and that the accused had not been heard; thus their detention was necessary to secure the proper course of the proceedings.
The first hearing was held on 14 February 2006. Subsequently, the trial court held hearings in March, April and July 2006.
On 10 May, 8 August and 10 November 2006 the trial court extended the applicant’s detention. In each decision the courts stated that the grounds for the applicant’s detention were still valid and pointed to the necessity of obtaining an expert opinon in respect of one of the witnesses.
A request by the applicant to be released from detention was refused by the Gdańsk District Court on 17 November 2006. The court based its decision on identical grounds to those given on the three previous occasions.
On 19 January 2007 the Gdańsk District Court decided to release the applicant and the co-accused from pre-trial detention.
On 12 February 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed an appeal by the prosecutor and upheld the decision to release the applicant. The court stated that, for reasons beyond the control of the trial court, it had not been possible to conclude the trial. Moreover, keeping the applicant in detention was no longer absolutely necessary in order to secure the proper course of the proceedings.
The proceedings are still pending before the trial court.
B. Relevant domestic law
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning detention during judicial proceedings (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention, and rules governing other “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.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long.
THE LAW
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 applicant’s detention started on 23 May 2005, when he was arrested, and ended on 19 January 2007, when he was released. Accordingly, the period to be taken into consideration amounts to one year, seven months and twenty-eight days.
The Government submitted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention satisfied the requirements of Article 5 § 3. It had been justified by “relevant” and “sufficient” grounds, including, in particular, the risk that the applicant would try to induce the co-accused to give false testimony or obstruct the proper course of the proceedings, since he had been charged with being a member of an organised criminal gang. The Government also argued that the domestic authorities had shown special diligence, as required in cases involving detained persons.
The applicant disagreed and submitted in general terms that he had been kept in pre-trial detention for an unreasonable length of time.
The Court reiterates that the general principles regarding the right “to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial” 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).
Turning to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that in their detention decisions the authorities, in addition to reasonable suspicion concerning the applicant, relied principally on two grounds, namely the severity of the penalty to which he was liable, and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The authorities also relied on the complexity of the case.
The applicant was charged with committing several burglaries in the Gdańsk Refinery, acting as part of an organised criminal gang. In the Court’s view, the fact that the case concerned a member of such a criminal gang should be taken into account in assessing compliance with Article 5 § 3 (see Bąk v. Poland, no. 7870/04, § 57, ECHR 2007-II).
The Court also accepts that a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences could initially have warranted his 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, who had acted as a criminal gang and against whom numerous charges of serious offences had been laid, 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 the assessment of the risk of absconding or reoffending, 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 (see Kopij v. Poland (dec.), no. 7676/06, 1 July 2008).
Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances of the case, which involves an organised criminal gang, and in view of the fact that the applicant’s detention lasted one year, seven months and twenty-eight days, the Court considers that the grounds given for the applicant’s pre-trial detention were “relevant” and “sufficient” to justify holding him in custody for the entire relevant period of one year and almost eight months.
It therefore remains to be ascertained whether the national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings. In this connection, the Court notes with concern that the prosecuting authorities apparently took no action during the first few months of the applicant’s detention, and that they were criticised for this by the District Court on 19 August 2005. However, regard being had to complexity of the case, that it concerned organised crime, and the fact that the applicant was released as soon as the authorities considered that his detention was no longer necessary for the proper course of the proceedings, the Court finds that overall the domestic authorities did display the required diligence in the handling of the applicant’s case.
It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
Fatoş Aracı Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President