PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 11825/07) 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 Maciej Lemejda (“the applicant”), on 21 February 2007.

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 his detention exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

On 1 June 2007 the President of the Fourth Section 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).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1977 and lives in Warsaw.

On 6 July 2004 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed, inter alia, several offences of drug trafficking.

On 7 July 2004 the Kielce District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody. It relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged and on the risk that he might tamper with evidence. Further, the court referred to the severity of the anticipated sentence.

The applicant appealed against the detention order. On 10 August 2004 the Kielce Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld the first‑instance decision. It explained that the reasons for his detention were still valid and stressed that the suspicion against him was supported by the fact that the applicant had partly confessed.

In the course of the investigation, the applicant’s detention was extended several times. The courts relied on the suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged. In their decisions, which also concerned several other suspects, the courts stressed the fact that most of the accused – however not the applicant - were acting in an organised group. Further, they referred to the complexity of the case, the fact that many suspects were involved in the case and that some of them had gone into hiding. They stressed that the detention was justified by the need to obtain further evidence, in particular, to obtain expert reports, to take evidence from numerous witnesses and suspects and to confront a witness with suspects. Lastly, the courts relied on the fact that some of the suspects were related to each other. On almost every occasion the courts relied on grounds that did not pertain to the applicant individually.

On 20 June 2005 the applicant and thirty three other suspects were indicted before the Warsaw Regional Court. The bill of indictment comprised 180 charges. The applicant was indicted on several charges of drug trafficking.

The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by the Warsaw Regional Court on 27 June and 24 October 2005, 27 January 2006 and later by the Warsaw Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 27 June and 15 December 2006, 13 March, 13 July and 12 October 2007. The courts repeated the grounds given in the previous decisions. On an unspecified date in January 2008 the Warsaw Court of Appeal further extended the applicant’s detention, until 3 April 2008. The applicant failed to submit information as to whether there any further decisions had been given extending his detention. On 23 May 2008 the applicant informed the Court that he had been released.

It appears that in the course of the proceedings, the applicant made numerous unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and against decisions extending his detention. The Warsaw Court of Appeal upheld the first‑instance decisions on the following dates: 29 November 2005, 3 March and 8 August 2006, and 3 August and 9 November 2007.

On 10 January 2006 the trial court held the first hearing. Between 10 January 2006 and 25 June 2007 it held approximately sixty hearings in the case.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the first‑instance court.