European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

CASE OF ZADEH v. THE CZECH REPUBLIC

(Applications nos. 35207/17 and 6 others)

JUDGMENT
 

STRASBOURG

27 June 2024

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

In the case of Zadeh v. the Czech Republic,

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

 Lado Chanturia, President,
 Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the applications against the Czech Republic lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms ("the Convention") on the various dates indicated in Appendix by the applicant, Mr Shahram Zadeh, a Czech and Iranian citizen ("the applicant"), who was born in 1971, lives in Prague and was represented by Zdenek Koudelka, a lawyer practising in Brno;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the excessive length of his pre-trial detention, the lack of speediness of the review of the lawfulness thereof and the inspection by the prison authorities of documents exchanged with his lawyers to the Czech Government ("the Government") represented by their Agent, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the applications;

the parties' observations;

the comments submitted by the Czech Bar Association, who were granted leave to intervene by the President of the Section;

Having deliberated in private on 6 June 2024,

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

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1.  The case concerns complaints under Articles 5 §§ 3 and 4 and Article 8 of the Convention.

2.  The complaints were lodged in the context of criminal proceedings initiated in the Czech Republic in March 2014 against the applicant and fourteen other persons on suspicion of having committed particularly serious crimes of tax evasion and of membership of an organised criminal group. On 19 March 2014 the applicant was arrested and subsequently placed in pre-trial detention where he remained until 4 February 2016, the date of his release on bail.

3.  On 2 December 2016 the applicant was again taken into custody in the framework of a new set of criminal proceedings initiated following his attempts, together with five other persons, to influence witnesses and to discredit officials involved in the examination of his first case. On 2 March 2017 the investigation in this case was completed. On 28 April 2017 the prosecutor decided that the risk of interfering with witnesses no longer existed. The trial started in November 2017.  The applicant remained in detention until his conviction on 5 March 2019 by the Brno Municipal Court, subsequently modified on appeal. The applicant was convicted and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment.

4.  During this period, the applicant's pre-trial detention was reviewed eight times by the domestic courts, including by the Constitutional Court. The domestic courts referred to the persistence of grounds for his detention based on reasonable suspicion that he committed the offences he was prosecuted for. They also referred to the risk of absconding resulting from the severity of the penalty faced by the applicant in both sets of proceedings, his connections with several other countries and substantial financial means as well as to the risk of re-offending on account of his previous documented attempts to interfere with the investigation in his first case after he was released on bail and of his tactics aimed at delaying the proceedings by all possible means. In their latest decisions, they referred to the Court's case-law that the grounds for detention weakened with the passage of time but observed that, in this particular case, the grounds for the applicant's detention had strengthened given the number of criminal proceedings he was facing. They further considered that alternative measures were inadequate to prevent these risks, notably in view of the applicant's connections with other countries and the nature and the extent of his criminal activity. They consequently rejected his repeated offers regarding the possible application of more lenient preventive measures. On 12 March 2019 the Constitutional Court conceded that the proceedings were of an exceptional duration but found that this duration was justified by the complexity of the case, the large number of defendants, the amount of damage caused and by numerous procedural motions, requests and objections repeatedly presented by the defence.

5.  By a judgment delivered on 29 October 2021 the Brno Regional Court approved the plea-bargaining agreement concluded by the applicant with the prosecution. According to that judgment, the applicant committed a particularly serious crime of evading taxes and other similar mandatory payments and of membership of an organised criminal group.

6.  As regards the alleged inspection by the prison authorities of documents, notes and correspondence from his lawyers, these issues raised in his appeals lodged against different detention and extension orders were repeatedly rejected by the Constitutional Court in its decisions of 8 October 2019, of 4 May 2020 and of 24 June 2020 with a reference to the limited scope of review of detention proceedings.

THE COURT'S ASSESSMENT

1. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS

7.  Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.

2. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
   1. Admissibility

8.  The Government first raised a non-exhaustion plea on account of the applicant's failure to initiate compensation proceedings in respect of the whole period of the applicant's pre-trial detention (see Vokurka v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 40552/02, 16 October 2007). The Court reiterates that in the absence of specific case-law examples to the contrary, a civil compensation claim does not offer the applicant, complaining about the merits of a judicial decision adopted in the context of criminal proceedings, reasonable prospects of success as required by the relevant Convention case-law (see Knebl v. the Czech Republic, no. 20157/05, § 77, 28 October 2010). It finds no reasons to hold otherwise in the present case. Consequently, the Government's non-exhaustion plea must be dismissed.

9.  The Government further argued that if the compensation proceedings initiated by the applicant following his release on bail cannot be considered as a remedy to be exhausted, his complaint in respect of the first period of his detention should thus be declared inadmissible as belated (see Idalov v. Russia [GC], no. 5826/03, § 129, 22 May 2012). The Court accepts the Government's argument and finds that the six-month rule should be applied, separately, to each period of pre-trial detention. Accordingly, the complaint in respect of the first period of the applicant's pre-trial detention, that is between 19 March 2014 and 1 February 2016, should be declared inadmissible as being lodged out of time (see Zherdev v. Ukraine, no. 34015/07, §§ 109-110, 27 April 2017, with further references).

10.  As regards the second period of the applicant's detention, that is between 2 December 2016 when he was arrested on new charges and 5 March 2019 when he was convicted thereof, this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded, nor is it inadmissible on any other ground. It must therefore be declared admissible.

2. Merits

11.  The general principles have been summarised in the cases of Smatana v. the Czech Republic (no. 18642/04, §§ 101-03, 27 September 2007), and Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova ([GC], no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 5 July 2016).

12.  The applicant was arrested on new charges on 2 December 2016. He was convicted by the trial court on 5 March 2019. Thus, the period to be taken into consideration lasted two years, three months and two days.

13.  In their detention decisions, the authorities, in addition to the persistent reasonable suspicion against the applicant and the complexity of the case, relied principally on three grounds, namely (1) the risk of absconding given the severity of the penalty to which he was liable, (2) the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings given the risk that the applicant might interfere with witnesses and the investigation and (3) the risk of re-offending in view of the special nature of the criminal activity resulting from his previous behaviour after he had been released on bail.

14.  The Court accepts that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant of having committed the serious offences could initially warrant his detention. It also accepts that the need for voluminous evidence constituted relevant and sufficient grounds for the applicant's initial detention.

15.  The judicial authorities also relied on the likelihood that a severe sentence might have been imposed on the applicant given the serious nature of the offences at issue. However, the Court reiterates 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 of itself justify long periods of detention (see for instance, Ilijkov v. Bulgaria, no. 33977/96, §§ 80-81, 26 July 2001 and Michta v. Poland, no. 13425/02, § 49, 4 May 2006). The same considerations are relevant in the context of cases concerning organised crime. While all the above factors could justify even a relatively long period of detention, they did not give the domestic courts unlimited powers to extend this measure. Even if the particular circumstances of the case required detention to be extended beyond the period generally accepted under the Court's case-law, particularly strong reasons would be needed to justify further extensions of the applicant's pre-trial detention (see Wolf v. Poland, no. 15667/03 and 2929/04, § 90, 16 January 2007).

16.  The Court notes in this respect that, apart from the general risk flowing from the organised nature of the applicant's alleged criminal activities, the domestic courts noted that the applicant had previously attempted to influence witnesses and to bribe the interpreter. According to the prosecution authorities, this risk ceased to exist as from April 2017 after the investigation was completed and the applicant's case was sent to the trial court (see paragraph 3 above). However, the applicant remained in detention until his conviction on 5 March 2019. In their decisions, the domestic courts reiterated the same grounds to justify his detention which were mainly based on the severity of the penalty he faced in both proceedings, his personal situation and ties with other countries, and his previous attempts to interfere with the investigation, without however citing any new facts except a reference to his procedural behaviour at trial (see paragraph 4 above). The Court reiterates in this respect that with the passage of time, the grounds relied on became less relevant and cannot justify the entire period of over two years and three months for which the most serious preventive measure against the applicant was imposed, in particular in a situation where the applicant had already spent one year, ten months and twelve days in detention in the related criminal proceedings (compare and contrast with Nuota v. the Czech Republic (dec.) [Committee], no. 40764/14, 15 December 2022). Although the Court declared the complaint in respect of the first period of the applicant's detention inadmissible, it may take this period into consideration when assessing the overall reasonableness of detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 (see Idalov, cited above, §§ 130 and 135).

17.  Having regard to the foregoing, even taking into account the fact that the courts were faced with the particularly difficult task of trying a case involving an organised criminal group, the Court concludes that the grounds given by the domestic authorities could not justify the overall period of the applicant's detention in the proceedings concerning a non-violent crime. In these circumstances it is not necessary to examine whether the proceedings were conducted with special diligence.

18.  There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

3. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION

19.  The applicant further complained of the lack of speediness of the review of the lawfulness of his detention and of regular inspection by the prison administration of the notes, documents and other correspondence from his lawyers. In his observations, the applicants also raised additional complaints under various Convention provisions.

20.  Having regard to the facts of the case, the submissions of the parties, and its findings above, the Court considers that it has dealt with the main legal questions raised by the case and that there is no need to examine the remaining complaints (see Centre for Legal Resources on behalf of Valentin Câmpeanu v. Romania [GC], no.47848/08, § 156, ECHR 2014 and T.A. v. Armenia [Committee], no. 2648/22, § 25, 6 February 2024).

APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION

21.  The applicant claimed 15,000 euros (EUR) in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 5,400 in respect of costs and expenses incurred before the Court.

22.  The Government contested these claims.

23.  The Court considers that the applicant has undoubtedly suffered non-pecuniary damage as a result of the violation found. It therefore awards the applicant EUR 2,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage (see, in particular, Ara Harutyunyan v. Armenia, no. 629/11, § 66, 20 October 2016).

24.  Having regard to the documents in its possession and to the nature of the violation found, the Court considers it reasonable to award 200 EUR for costs and expenses, plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant and dismisses the remainder of the claims.

FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,

1. Decides to join the applications;
2. Declares the complaint concerning excessive length of the applicant's pre-trial detention between 2 December 2016 and 5 March 2019 admissible and the remainder of the period inadmissible;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
4. Holds that there is no need to examine the admissibility and merits of the remaining complaints;
5. Holds

(a)  that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the following amounts, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;

(i)  EUR 2,000 (two thousand euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable, in respect of non-pecuniary damage;

(ii)  EUR 200 (two hundred euros), plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant, in respect of costs and expenses;

(b)  that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points;

6. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim for just satisfaction.

Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 June 2024, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.

 Martina Keller Lado Chanturia
 Deputy Registrar President

APPENDIX

List of cases: