European Court of Human Rights

 

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 52446/08
Krzysztof GOLA
against Poland
lodged on 22 October 2008

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Gola, is a Polish national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Czeladz.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 1 April 2001 the applicant’s twenty‑year‑old son M. died as a result of a fire in an office building of company A specialised in trading in precious metals.

The applicant’s son had been employed by a security agency B as a security agent only one day earlier and was sent to guard the premises of company A. For this first assignment he took with him a friend, Mr M.Z. On the night of 1 April 2001 unknown perpetrators broke the window in the office building and introduced a burning item and a highly inflammable substance. The perpetrators prevented the applicant’s son and his friend from leaving the building by threatening them with firearms. Mr M.Z. finally ran out of the building with severe burns; he died of his injuries a few days later in a hospital. The applicant’s son was found dead inside the building.

On 2 April 2001 the Bedzin District Prosecutor opened an investigation into the incident. During the investigation it was disclosed that one day earlier, on 30 March 2001, an arson attack had been attempted on the same building.

On 5 April 2001 the prosecutor requested an expert opinion.

On 18 December 2001 the prosecutor decided to stay the proceedings pending the preparation of the expert opinion. On 19 August 2002 the prosecutor resumed the investigation.

On 30 September 2002 the Bedzin District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation into the arson attack of 1 April and the attempted arson attack of 30 March 2001 and the homicide of two persons under Articles 163 and 148 of the Criminal Code due to the failure to establish the identity of the perpetrators.

The applicant’s appeal was allowed by the Regional Prosecutor and the investigation was remitted to the District Prosecutor. The Regional Prosecutor ordered mobile phone operators to establish the identity of persons who had made calls to company A on the night of 30 March 2001.

On 28 January 2003 the Bedzin District Prosecutor again discontinued the investigation. The prosecutor repeated the wording of his decision of 30 September 2002 and added that the information obtained from telephone operators had not allowed the identity of the caller to be established.

It appears that the applicant’s appeal was allowed and the investigation was remitted to the District Prosecutor.

On 21 August 2003 the District Prosecutor for the third time discontinued the proceedings.

On 19 January 2004 the Katowice Regional Court allowed the applicant’s appeal against the prosecutor’s decision and ordered the prosecutor to continue the investigation. The court pointed to discrepancies in the witnesses’ statements that needed to be clarified. It also considered that it had not been clarified whether the fire extinguishers had been functioning.

On 10 May 2004 the District Prosecutor stayed the proceedings as one of the witnesses could not be found. The applicant’s appeal against the decision was rejected as lodged out of time. On 16 March 2005 the prosecutor resumed the proceedings.

On 21 March 2005 the Bedzin District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation as the perpetrators had not been established.

It is not clear whether the applicant appealed against this decision to the Regional Prosecutor. The applicant however continued to write letters and complaints to the Prosecutor General, the Minister of Justice, and other authorities complaining about the shortcomings of the investigation which had failed to clarify many issues.

On 20 July 2007 the Katowice Appellate Prosecutor in reply to one of his letters informed him that he would open an investigation into his allegations against his son’s employer, the security agency B.

On 3 December 2007 the Bedzin District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation into whether the employer had put the life of the applicant’s son in danger, in breach of Article 220 of the Criminal Code.

The applicant appealed and on 22 February 2008 the Bedzin District Court allowed the appeal and quashed the prosecutor’s decision. The court considered that the circumstances of the case called for examination under Article 160 of the Criminal Code which penalises endangering the life of a person in general and not particularly in the context of employment. The court further ordered an investigation of the discrepancies between statements of witnesses and instructions given to security agents employed by B in case of a danger of fire. Moreover, it was to be examined whether the applicant’s son had been informed about the attempted arson attack on company A which had taken place one day before his death.

On 30 April 2008 the Bedzin District Prosecutor discontinued the investigation finding that the offences prohibited by Articles 160 and 220 of the Criminal Code became time‑barred after five years.

The applicant’s appeal against the decision was dismissed by the Bedzin District Court on 21 August 2008 as the charges were time‑barred.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains without invoking any Article of the Convention that the investigation into his son’s death was not thorough and effective and did not clarify the circumstances of his death. In particular he complains that the authorities failed to investigate the failure on the part of his son’s employer and company A to provide training and sufficient fire safety installations, which contributed to the tragic outcome of the arson attack. Moreover, his son was not informed about the attempted arson attack which had taken place one day before taking up his duties at company A. The applicant repeatedly complained about this to the authorities but they only started to investigate these charges in 2007 when they were already time‑barred.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

 

  Having regard to the procedural obligations of the State, was the investigation into and judicial examination of the death of the applicant’s son thorough and effective, as required by Article 2 of the Convention? Reference is made in particular to the fact that the investigation to clarify fully the circumstances of the death of the applicant’s son was initiated only in 2007 and discontinued as they were time‑barred.

 

  The Government are invited to provide copies of the decisions of the Regional Prosecutor following the applicant’s appeals against the Bedzin District Prosecutor’s decisions of 30 September 2002 and 28 January 2003.