PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 27992/06) 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, Mr Krystian Żywicki (“the applicant”), on 23 June 2006.

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 pre-trial detention had exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention; that the domestic courts had failed to examine “speedily” one of his appeals against the extension of the detention and one of his requests for release; that his detention had been unlawful; and that the length of criminal proceedings in his case had been excessive.

On 23 October 2007 the President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice of the complaints under Article 5 § 3 and 5 § 4 of the Convention 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 1976 and lives in Szczecin.

On 26 January 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed several offences of drug trafficking.

On 26 January 2004 the Szczecin District Court remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences 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 and go into hiding. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.

In the course of the investigation, his detention was extended several times. In their decisions the courts referred to the reasons previously given and the likelihood that he had committed the offences in an organised criminal group. Further, they referred to the complexity of the case and the fact that many suspects were involved and some of them had not yet been arrested. They stressed that the detention was justified by the need to analyse the existing evidence and the scope of the applicant’s criminal activity, as well as the necessity to obtain further evidence, in particular to have witnesses examined.

The applicant appealed against the decision extending his detention (he appealed against the Szczecin District Court’s decisions of 9 April, 23 June, 31 August and 22 October 2004 and 19 January 2005) but to no avail. His applications for release were likewise unsuccessful.

However, on 15 July 2004 the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), after examination of the applicant’s appeal, amended the decision extending his detention given by the Szczecin District Court on 23 June 2004 and reduced the detention period by two months. The court criticised the manner in which the investigation and the case file had been conducted, as well as pointing out shortcomings in the prosecutor’s request for extension of the applicant’s detention.

On 12 October 2004 the investigation was completed and on 20 October 2004 the applicant and other suspects were indicted before the court.

The detention was then subsequently extended by the Szczecin District Court on several occasions.

In a decision given on 20 October 2005, the Szczecin District Court extended the applicant’s detention and the detention of the other nine co‑accused until 25 January 2006. However, at the same time it ruled that the applicant could be released on bail on payment of a security of 30,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (approx. 7,500 euros (EUR). The court noted also that “in most cases the accused were charged with acting in an organised criminal group or possibly (ewentualnie) the offences with which they were charged had been committed together and under arrangement with other persons”. The court did not however indicate which of the accused had been involved in the criminal group.

On 8 November 2005 the applicant’s defence counsel requested the court to lower the amount of bail by PLN 10,000, but his request was rejected on 6 December 2005.

The applicant did not pay the security and his detention was extended beyond the statutory two-year time-limit by the Szczecin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 18 January 2006 and 26 April 2006.

In the decision of 18 January 2006, which considered the extension of the detention only in relation to the applicant, the court did not mention the charge of acting in an organised criminal group. It noted however that “the applicant was charged with two offences and in one case the anticipated penalty exceeded eight years’ imprisonment. In such a situation there is ipso iure a presumption that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings because of the fear of a severe sentence” (ze względu na obawę przed grożąca oskarżonemu surową karą).

On 23 January 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision of 18 January 2006 and on 3 April 2006 he applied for release. According to the applicant, neither the appeal against the extension of his detention nor the application for release was examined. In their observations the Government submitted that the applicant’s appeal of 23 January 2006 had been examined by the Szczecin Court of Appeal on 2 February 2006 and dismissed. They failed however to submit the relevant documents. As regards the applicant’s request for release of 3 April 2006, the Government admitted that, “by mistake” it had not been examined by the court.

On 26 April 2006 the Szczecin Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention until 30 December 2006. The court relied on the same grounds as previously and reiterated the argument of the Szczecin District Court of 20 October 2005 (see paragraph 13 above) namely that “most of the co-accused” had been charged with acting in an organised criminal group.

On 31 October 2006 the Szczecin District Court sentenced the applicant to three years’ imprisonment and ordered his release. It appears that he was released on the same day.

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the first‑instance judgment. The proceedings are pending before the appellate court.