PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 24023/06) 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, Ms Halina Maria Łoś (“the applicant”), on 7 June 2006.

The applicant was represented by Mr Henryk Szulejewski, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that her detention on remand had exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

On 30 January 2007 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3) and to examine it simultaneously with the case of Fiłon v. Poland (no. 39163/06), which concerned the same criminal proceedings.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1952 and lives in Warsaw. Criminal proceedings against the applicant and her detention on remand

On 10 June 2003 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of fraud, committed in an organised criminal group.

On 11 June 2003 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded her in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that she had committed the offence in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that she might tamper with evidence and induce witnesses to give false testimony. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.

The applicant’s appeal against the detention order, likewise her further appeals against decisions prolonging her detention and all her subsequent, numerous applications for release, were unsuccessful. In her applications and appeals, she argued that the charge against her was based on unreliable and contradictory evidence. She also relied on her personal circumstances, in particular her age.

In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Warsaw District Court (on 11 June 2003, 3 September 2003, 3 December 2003 and by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (on 8 June 2004, 7 September 2004, 3 December 2004, 1 March 2005). In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. They attached importance to the grave nature of those offences and the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation, especially the need to verify evidence from suspects and witnesses and the need to obtain fresh evidence from experts justified holding her in custody.

On 12 May 2005 the Pruszków District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) lodged a bill of indictment with the Warsaw District Court. The applicant was charged with fraud, committed in an organised criminal group. There were 16 defendants in the case, all charged with numerous counts of fraud committed in an organised criminal group. On 20 May 2005 the Warsaw District Court again prolonged the applicant’s detention until 9 June 2005 reiterating the grounds previously given for her detention.

Since on 10 June 2005 the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time-limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, a further prolongation of her detention and also detention of her co-accused E.C., A.F. and P.S until 9 December 2005 was ordered by the Warsaw Court of Appeal on 3 June 2005. The court found that the strong suspicion against her of having committed the serious offences with which she had been charged and the severity of the anticipated sentence justified holding her in custody. It pointed out that the case was complex given the number of accused and the number of charges brought against them. Moreover, it added that 450 witnesses were to be heard and numerous documents were to be examined.

On 12 August 2005 the trial court held the first hearing. Until 21 December 2006, the date on which the applicant was released from detention, the Warsaw District Court held 44 hearings in the case.

During the court proceedings the authorities further prolonged the applicant’s detention pending trial. On 25 November 2005 the Warsaw Court of Appeal, on an application of the trial court, prolonged the detention of the applicant until 9 March 2006, reiterating the grounds previously given for her detention. The court found the request for prolongation of the applicant’s pre-trial detention justified; however, it prolonged it only by three months and not by six months. The court also pointed out that it was possible for the trial court to examine all the evidence within the three‑month time-limit and that maximum efforts should be made to expedite the examination of the case. On 7 March 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal prolonged the detention of the applicant until 9 June 2006, reiterating the grounds previously given for her detention. The court pointed out that the three-month time-limit was sufficient for examining the evidence. On 30 May 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal prolonged the detention of the applicant until 9 December 2006. The court stressed the complexity of the case in view of the number of witnesses to be heard. It also pointed out that the trial court should re-consider if it was necessary to hear all the witnesses listed in the bill of indictment. The trial court was instructed to take all necessary measures in order to expedite the proceedings. On 8 December 2006 the Warsaw Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 December 2006. The court relied on the grounds stated in the previous decisions.

On 21 December 2006 the applicant was released.

The proceedings are still pending.