European Court of Human Rights

 

 

FIRST SECTION

CASE OF CZESZEL v. POLAND

(Application no. 47731/19)

 

 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

STRASBOURG

13 October 2022

 

 

 

This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.

 

In the case of Czeszel v. Poland,

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:

Péter Paczolay, President,

Alena Poláčková,

Davor Derenčinović, Judges,

and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 47731/19) 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 19 August 2019 by a Polish national, Mr Mirosław Czeszel, born in 1960 and living in Zaścianki (“the applicant”) who was represented by Mr P. Kardas, a lawyer practising in Cracow;

the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the allegedly excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand to the Polish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated in private on 20 September 2022,

Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The present case concerns the allegedly excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand.

2.  The applicant was detained in the course of criminal proceedings which concerned multiple credit fraud. The final bill of indictment referred to 61 charges against the applicant, including managing an organised criminal group. At that moment the case files comprised 118 volumes and 42 volumes of attachments.

3.  The applicant was arrested on 11 May 2015 and detained on 13 May 2015 by a decision of the Białystok District Court. In the course of the proceedings the applicant’s detention was systematically extended. The domestic courts based their decisions on a significant probability that the applicant had committed the offences in question and on the fact that he faced a severe sentence. Moreover, he had been accused of managing an organised criminal group and committing offences within it, which increased the risk of obstructing the proceedings. The courts also referred to the complicated nature of the case and the risk of his absconding because he did not have a permanent residence in Poland. The courts stressed several times that a co‑accused had fled the country after being released from detention. The courts dismissed the applicant’s argument that he had pleaded guilty to most of the charges because, in their view, he had tried to minimise his involvement in the criminal activity.

4.  The applicant was indicted on 9 February 2018.

5.  On 19 February 2019 the Warsaw Court of Appeal decided that the applicant could be released on bail for the amount of 1,000,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approximately 250,000 euros (EUR)). The court reasoned that in the light of the length of the applicant’s detention, the risk of absconding and tampering with evidence was significantly decreased. The court also held that the Warsaw Regional Court, which requested the extension of the detention, had not indicated which procedural steps in the course of the trial required the applicant’s further detention.

6.  The applicant did not pay bail. Subsequently, various domestic courts extended the applicant’s detention modifying the bail conditions.

7.  On 23 May 2019 the Warsaw Court of Appeal set bail at PLN 300,000 (approximately EUR 75,000) in cash and a real estate mortgage for PLN 450,000 (approximately EUR 112,500). The applicant was additionally placed under police supervision and prohibited from leaving the country and contacting co‑defendants and witnesses. Bail was paid and the mortgage submitted on 27 May 2019. The applicant was released on 28 May 2019.

8.  The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention was unreasonable.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

9.  The Government raised a preliminary objection of non‑exhaustion of domestic remedies, as the applicant failed to appeal against six decisions extending his detention and four decisions setting conditions of the applicant’s bail.

10.  The Court observes that the applicant did challenge nine decisions regarding his detention and filed six requests for release. The applicant’s last appeal against extension of his detention resulted in the decision of 19 February 2019, setting a bail for the first time (see paragraph 5 above). Thereafter, the applicant filed various motions to adjust the terms of the bail to his financial means in order to obtain his release. According to the Court’s case-law in similar cases the applicant is not required to appeal against each and every decision extending his detention (see, for example, Bielski v. Poland and Germany, no. 18120/03, § 33, 3 May 2011). It follows that this preliminary objection must be dismissed.

11.  The Government further argued that the application was manifestly ill‑founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention. They submitted that the reasons relied on by the domestic courts justified the entire length of the applicant’s detention. The applicant was accused of managing an organised criminal group, the case was complex, and the proceeding were conducted with adequate diligence.

12.  The applicant contested the Government’s arguments and maintained his claims.

13.  The general principles concerning the right to “trial within a reasonable time” or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been summarised in Kudła v. Poland ([GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000-XI) and Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 5 July 2016).

14.  The applicant’s detention started on 11 May 2015 and ended on 28 May 2019 when he was released on bail. The Court notes that already on 19 February 2019 the applicant was granted bail, however, of a considerable amount (see paragraph 5 above). Since the applicant was unable to pay it, he repeatedly asked the domestic courts to lower the sum, which was finally granted on 23 May 2019 by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (see paragraph 7 above). Having regard to its case-law on the subject (see Kolakovic v. Malta, no. 76392/12, § 70-71, 19 March 2015), the Court considers that the period to be taken into account amounts to four years and eighteen days.

15.  In the present case, when extending the applicant’s detention the domestic courts consistently relied on the gravity of the charges, the complicated nature of the case and the likelihood that the applicant would abscond or obstruct the proceedings (see paragraph 3 above). However, with the passage of time those initial grounds for pre-trial detention became less and less relevant and the domestic courts failed to rely on other “relevant” and “sufficient” grounds to justify the deprivation of liberty.

16.  In the instant case, the Government has not provided arguments susceptible to justify the entire length the applicant’s pre-trial detention. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicant’s detention on remand was excessive.

17.  The application is therefore admissible and discloses a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

18.  The applicant claimed 25,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non‑pecuniary damage. He did not make any claims for pecuniary damage or costs and expenses.

19.  The Government considered the sum in question exorbitant.

20.  The Court awards the applicant EUR 5,300, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1.      Declares the application admissible;

2.      Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;

3.      Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, EUR 5,300 (five thousand three hundred euros) to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement, plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non‑pecuniary damage;

(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;

4.      Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 13 October 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

                       

            Liv Tigerstedt                                                     Péter Paczolay
          Deputy Registrar                                                      President