PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 8456/08) 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 Andrzej Żurawski (“the applicant”), on 4 February 2008.

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

The applicant alleged that his detention had exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

On 6 October 2008 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It 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 1957 and lives in Sosnowiec.

On 20 May 2003 the Regional Prosecutor instituted an investigation into illegal trading in liquid fuel.

On 8 June 2005 the applicant was charged with, inter alia, establishing and leading an organised criminal group engaged in money laundering, illegal trading in liquid fuel and the falsification of tax documents.

On 9 June 2005 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, on the basis of reasonable suspicion that he 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 he might tamper with evidence. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.

The applicant's appeals against decisions prolonging his detention were unsuccessful. In his appeals, he argued that the charges against him were based on unreliable and fabricated evidence. He also relied on his personal circumstances, in particular the need to ensure that his wife, who suffered from psychiatric problems, was cared for.

In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on 30 August and 30 November 2005 and 2 March 2006.

Further decisions extending the applicant's detention were taken by the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 19 May, 9 August 2006 and 22 November 2006, 14 February, 16 May, 17 August, 19 September and 19 December 2007.

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 complexity of the case, the significant number of persons involved and the voluminous documentation. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, especially the need to verify evidence from suspects and witnesses, justified holding the applicant in custody. The courts stressed, on several occasions, the applicant's role in the organised criminal group, holding that there was a risk that if released, he would induce witnesses to give false testimony, or otherwise obstruct the proper conduct of the investigation. In one of the decisions dismissing an appeal by the applicant against a decision prolonging his detention, the Court of Appeal noted, that “certain witnesses in principle admitted that they had been instructed [about what to say] in their testimony” and that “the testimony of other witnesses was not consistent with the explanations given by the applicant in the course of the investigation.” It did not, however, specify who had exerted pressure on the witnesses or how they had done so. The courts found no special grounds that would justify lifting the applicant's detention and imposing a less severe measure. In its decisions of 17 August and 19 September 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal stressed that the investigation had already lasted a long time and urged the prosecutor to draw up a bill of indictment. It also noted, in its decisions of 19 September and 19 December 2007, that the prosecutor's arguments for having the applicant's detention extended had been of a very general nature and instructed the prosecutor to provide a detailed list of tasks that still needed to be completed during the investigation if he wished to have the applicant's detention extended further.

On 27 June 2008 the applicant's pre-trial detention was lifted and he was released.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending.