PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 32849/04) 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 Marian Mucha (“the applicant”), on 17 June 2004.

The Polish Government were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged, in particular, that the length of his detention on remand had been unreasonable.

On 13 September 2005 the Court declared the application partly inadmissible and decided to communicate the complaint concerning the unreasonable length of the applicant's pre-trial detention to the Government. Under the provisions of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention, it decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility.

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1954 and lives in Sosnowiec, Poland.

On 21 August 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police.

On 22 August 2001 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been involved in drug trafficking and drug production as a member of an organised gang.

On 20 December 2001 the applicant's pre-trial detention was prolonged by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy). The court relied on the severity of the sentence that might be imposed and held that keeping the applicant in detention was justified by the need to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.

The applicant's appeal against this decision was dismissed on 29 January 2002.

On 8 April 2002 the Regional Court further prolonged the applicant's detention reiterating the grounds originally given for his detention and adding that the measure was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.

Subsequently, on 24 July and 25 September 2002, the Katowice Court of Appeal prolonged the detention of the applicant and 12 co‑accused. The court considered that the strong suspicion against the accused of having committed serious offences while acting in an organised gang made it probable that they would obstruct the course of the proceedings. It found that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the accused might induce them to obstruct the proceedings. With regard to the applicant, the court underlined the risk of a heavy sentence being imposed on him.

On 22 November 2002 the applicant and 15 co-accused were indicted before the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court.

On 27 November 2002 the pre-trial detention of the applicant and 14 other persons was further extended. The Katowice Regional Court considered the risk of the accused tampering with evidence high, basing itself on the fact that they had been charged with being members of an organised criminal gang.

The applicant's request of 5 May 2003 to lift his pre-trial detention was dismissed on 9 June 2003.

As the length of the applicant's detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego) the District Court made several applications to the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) for the applicant's detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On 6 August 2003 the Court of Appeal granted the application. The court noted, however, that although the bill of indictment had been lodged eight months previously, the trial court had not yet started to examine the merits of the case. As regards the need to prolong the applicant's detention, the court noted as follows: “...The [Regional Court] rightly pointed to Articles 249 § 1 and 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to justify the continuation of the detention on remand in order to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, and there is no need to discuss that further. It should be underlined that, given the number of co-accused and the type of offences they had been charged with, the present case is particularly complex. Therefore, it is necessary to prolong further the detention in order to carry out the proceedings, in particular to take evidence from 16 accused and 11 witnesses... It should also be noted that, as the proceedings advance, the Regional Court should consider whether it was still necessary to extend the [detention on remand] with respect to all the accused.”

The first hearing was held on 13 November 2003. In total, the trial court held 36 hearings.

On 30 November 2003 the applicant again unsuccessfully requested the court to lift his pre-trial detention.

On 17 December 2003 the Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant's detention. The court pointed to the complexity of the case and the advanced stage of the proceedings before the trial court.

On 12 February, 10 March 8 May and 7 June 2004 the applicant repeated his requests to lift his detention on remand. All his applications were dismissed.

On 23 June 2004 the Katowice Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant's pre-trial detention relying in particular on the complexity of the case and the large number of co-accused.

The applicant appealed against this decision, but it was dismissed on 21 July 2004.

On 2 August and 26 November 2004 the court dismissed subsequent requests to lift the applicant's pre-trial detention.

On 16 December 2004 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court gave judgment. It convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 8 years' imprisonment.

The applicant lodged an appeal.

On 26 January 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld the judgment. It appears that the applicant did not lodge a cassation appeal. The judgment is final.