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 >>
ANTCZAK v. POLAND - 3360/09 [2010] ECHR 1776 (9 November 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1776.html
Cite as:
[2010] ECHR 1776
[
New search]
[
Contents list]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF ANTCZAK v. POLAND
(Application
no. 3360/09)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 November
2010
This
judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Antczak v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a
Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta,
President,
Lech Garlicki,
Vincent Anthony de
Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş
Aracı, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 18 October 2010,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
The
case originated in an application
(no. 3360/09) 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 Sebastian
Antczak (“the applicant”), on 5 December 2008.
The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wolasiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On
23 November 2009 the
Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. In
accordance with Protocol no. 14, the application was allocated to a
Committee of three Judges.
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
The
applicant was born in 1978 and lives in Piotrków Trybunalski.
On
4 November 2005 the applicant was arrested by the police.
On
5 November 2005 the Zgierz District Court decided to detain the
applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had
committed an offence of illegal possession of weapons and ammunition.
The
applicant's pre-trial detention was extended on 22 November 2005
and on 31 January, 21 March, 20 June, 1 August, 25 October
and 20 December 2006. The courts relied on the severity of the
possible sentence, which created a risk of the applicant's going into
hiding or interfering with the proper course of the proceedings, and
the necessity of gathering evidence in this particularly complex
case. The court relied heavily on the complexity of the proceedings
which involved many co accused who had allegedly participated in
an organised, armed gang.
On
25 April and 27 June 2007 the Łódź Court of Appeal
further extended the pre-trial detention of the applicant and other
co-accused. In the meantime additional charges were brought against
the applicant.
On
6 September 2007 the applicant and 21 other co accused were
indicted before the Łódź Regional Court. The
applicant was charged with illegal possession of weapons and
ammunition, abetting to murder and robbery committed while acting in
an organised criminal gang. The prosecutor requested the court to
hear evidence from 24 witnesses.
On
account of the complexity of the case the first hearing was scheduled
for 8 April 2008.
Between
11 April 2008 and 8 January 2010 the court held thirty three
hearings. No hearing was held between 10 June and 10 November 2009
due to the absence of either the accused or the defence lawyers.
The
applicant's detention was further extended on 11 September 2007,
23 May and 17 December 2008, 22 April, 23 September and
22 December 2009.
During
this detention the applicant served several sentences of imprisonment
imposed in different sets of criminal proceedings. In particular
between 13 December 2005 and 13 December 2007 he served a sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the Zgierz District Court on 10 May 2005.
Between 13 December 2007 and 16 April 2009 he served a sentence of
imprisonment imposed by the Zgierz District Court on 25 July 2001.
Since 16 April 2009 he has been serving a prison sentence imposed on
6 February 2003. The release date is planned for 11 December 2011.
A. The other set of criminal proceedings - bill of
indictment of 10 March 2009
The
applicant is also involved in a second set of criminal proceedings.
On
10 March 2009 the applicant and 27 co-accused were indicted before
the Łódź Regional Court on multiple charges related
to burglaries, thefts, extortions, kidnappings, robberies, drug
dealing and stolen cars, committed while acting in an organised,
armed criminal gang. This set of proceedings is pending before the
first-instance court.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
On 28 January 2010 the applicant lodged a complaint
under section 5 of the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a
breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o
skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w
postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki)
(“the 2004 Act”). He complained about the length of the
investigation and the length of the court proceedings.
On 10 March 2010 the Lódź Court of Appeal
considered the length of the proceedings to be reasonable and
dismissed the applicant's complaint.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
The
relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the
excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the
applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court's
decisions in cases of Charzyński v. Poland no. 15212/03
(dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland
no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII and the judgment in the case
of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46,
ECHR 2005-V.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNREASONABLE LENGTH OF THE PROCEEDINGS
The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge
against him, everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal ...”reasonable time by [a]
... tribunal...”
The
Government contested that argument.
The
period to be taken into consideration began on 4 November 2005
and has not yet ended. It has thus lasted nearly five years for one
level of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
The
Government submitted that the applicant exhausted the domestic
remedies only one year after he had lodged his application with the
Court. For this reason they were of the opinion that he had failed to
exhaust the available domestic remedies before bringing his case to
the Court.
The Court notes that the applicant made use of the
remedy provided for by the 2004 Act and lodged a complaint about the
unreasonable length of the proceedings. The Lódz Court of
Appeal dismissed his complaint.
The Court has already examined that remedy for the
purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and found
it effective in respect of the complaints about the excessive length
of judicial proceedings in Poland. Accordingly, the Court finds that
the applicant exhausted domestic remedies in respect of his complaint
under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, Majewski v.
Poland, no. 52690/99, §§ 31, 32; 11 October 2005.
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. The Government
The
Government submitted that the case had been extremely complex. It
concerned an organised criminal gang. The applicant was charged with
several offences. In addition, the prosecution asked the court to
hear evidence from a great number of witnesses. Hearings had been
scheduled without any delay, at regular intervals. There were
sometimes even five or six hearings in one month. In view of the
severity of charges against the applicant and the conduct of the
authorities the Government were of the opinion that the length of the
proceedings was compatible with the standards laid down in Article 6
§ 1 of the Convention.
2. The applicant
The
applicant disagreed and argued that the proceedings in his case have
lasted exceptionally long.
3. The
Court's assessment.
The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable of
persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present case. In
particular, the Court notes that the first hearing was held seven
months after the bill of indictment had been lodged with the trial
court (see, paragraphs 9 and10 above).
Having
regard to its case-law on the subject and the fact that the
proceedings are still pending before the court of first-instance, the
Court considers that in the instant case the overall length of the
proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement.
There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. 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 provides 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.”
34. The
Government disputed this argument with reference to the facts of the
case.
35. The
Court observes that the applicant's detention started on
4 November 2005, when he was arrested on suspicion of
illegal possession of weapons and ammunition and is still pending.
However, it appears from the documents submitted at a later stage
that since 13 December 2005 the applicant has been continuously
serving three terms of imprisonment imposed in different sets of
criminal proceedings. Consequently, the Court considers that after 13
December 2005 the applicant was deprived of his liberty “after
conviction by a competent court” and that this period of his
detention is covered by Article 5 § 1 (a) of the Convention and
falls outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
Accordingly, the period of the applicant's detention to be considered
under Article 5 § 3, amounts to one month and nine days.
The Court observes that the applicant was charged with
multiple offences committed while acting in an organised criminal
gang. In view of the above considerations and in the light of the
criteria established in its case-law in similar cases, the Court
considers that the applicant's detention does not disclose any
appearance of a breach of the “reasonable time”
requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. This complaint
is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to
Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention
III. 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 10,000 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary and
non-pecuniary damage.
The Government contested these claims.
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 awards the applicant EUR 2,500 in respect of
non pecuniary damage.
B. Costs and expenses
The
applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses involved in
the proceedings.
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 complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months,
EUR 2,500 (two thousand five hundred 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
the 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 9 November 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Fatoş Aracı Ján Šikuta
Deputy
Registrar President
