Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/56552.00-en-20051110/view/
Timestamp: 2020-07-10 19:41:22
Document Index: 764743362

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 56552', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 50', '§ 3', '§ 46', '§ 3', '§ 3']

TELECKI v. POLAND About Project
Application no. 56552/00
by Grzegorz TELECKI
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 March 1999,
Having regard to the partial decision of 3 July 2003,
The applicant, Grzegorz Telecki, is a Polish national, who was born in 1959 and lives in Lublin. The respondent Government were represented by their agent Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On 1 February 1999 the Bielsko-Biała District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that, acting in an organised group, he had committed fraud. At that time the applicant had already been detained on remand by the Kraków District Court on 8 April 1998 in connection with another set of criminal proceedings.
The applicant appealed against this decision, but on 19 March 1999 the Bielsko-Biała Regional Court dismissed it, finding that his detention was necessary to ensure the proper course of the proceedings.
On 13 April 1999 the Lublin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy), to which the case was in the meantime transferred, further prolonged the applicant’s detention. The court relied in particular on the complexity of the case, the need to obtain expert opinions and the seriousness of the charges against the applicant. In addition, the court considered that there existed a risk that the applicant, if released, would obstruct the collection of evidence.
The applicant appealed. On 20 May 1999 the Lublin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) dismissed the appeal.
By a decision of 16 June 1999 the Lublin Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand. The court considered that the reasons for which the detention had been ordered still existed and that the prosecuting authorities continued the process of obtaining evidence. The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed on 29 July 1999 by the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) relying on the strong suspicion against the applicant and on the complexity of the case.
In September 1999 the applicant was indicted before the Biskupiec District Court. The bill of indictment, directed against the applicant and one co-accused, concerned 16 counts of fraud allegedly committed by them between July and September 1997.
On 17 September 1999 the Biskupiec District Court prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention reiterating the grounds previously given for keeping him in the custody. The applicant appealed but his appeal was dismissed by the Olsztyn Regional Court on 15 October 1999.
On 14 March 2000 the Biskupiec District Court further prolonged the applicant’s detention. The court found that the grounds for the detention were still valid, having found no grounds for his release under Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (“1997 Code”). On 31 March 2000 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision.
At an unspecified later date the applicant requested his release. By the decisions of 25 April 2000 and of 10 May 2000 the Biskupiec District Court, rejected his requests, considering that the grounds for detaining the applicant still remained valid.
By a decision of 28 June 2000 the Biskupiec District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 November 2000. The court repeated the reasons given previously. On 14 July 2000 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed his appeal against this decision finding that the period of his detention was not excessive.
The first trial hearings scheduled for 11 and 12 April 2000 were adjourned as the applicant’s lawyer failed to appear before the court. The court appointed another lawyer for the applicant. The trial started on 8 November 2000.
At the hearing held on 21 November 2000 the Biskupiec District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 January 2001. The court relied on the identical reasons as given on precious occasions. The trial court held the hearings on 12 December 2000 and 16 January 2001.
Subsequently, the District Court made an application to the Warsaw Court of Appeal to prolong the applicant’s detention because it considered that the applicant’s detention would soon reach the statutory time-limit of 2 years as laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the 1997 Code. However, on 29 January 2001 the Warsaw Court of Appeal found that it was not competent to examine the request as the District Court had incorrectly calculated the time-limit. The Court of Appeal established that in the case pending before the Biskupiec District Court the applicant’s detention for the purposes of Article 263 § 3 of the 1997 Code should be counted only as of 31 March 2000 since before this date he was at the disposal of another court in connection with another set of criminal proceedings against him. The Court of Appeal stated:
“According to the well-established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court ‘the necessity to prolong the pre-trial detention shall be assessed in relation to periods of genuine depravation of liberty of an accused in that set of proceedings in the course of which the decision to prolong is to be taken’ (see decision of 7 judges of the Supreme Court of 29.01.1998 and ...)”
The Warsaw Court of Appeal concluded therefore that the time limit as set in Article 263 § 3 of the 1997 Code had not yet expired and that the Biskupiec District Court was competent to decide on the prolongation of his pre-trial detention. It remitted the request to the Biskupiec District Court.
By a decision of 31 January 2001, upheld by the Olsztyn Regional Court on 9 February 2001, the Biskupiec District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 May 2001, finding no grounds on which to order his release under Article 259 of the 1997 Code. The trial court further established that the process of hearing witnesses was incomplete and consequently retaining the applicant in custody was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court also held that the measure was justified by the severity of the anticipated sentence and the criminal relationship between the suspects.
The court held hearings on 20 February, 27 February, 28 March, 24 April and 29 May 2001. From December 2000 till May 2001 the court heard over 60 witnesses.
On 9 April 2001, 30 April 2001 and 14 May 2001 the Biskupiec District Court rejected other requests for the applicant’s release.
By a decision of 31 May 2001 the Biskupiec District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 July 2001, repeating the grounds given on previous occasions. The applicant appealed. On 20 June 2001 the Olsztyn Regional Court dismissed his appeal and upheld the contested decision.
By a judgment of 26 June 2001 the Biskupiec District Court convicted the applicant of 16 counts of fraud and sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal.
On 22 January 2002 the Olsztyn Regional Court held a hearing in the appellate proceedings, at which the applicant’s lawyer was present. The court dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the contested judgment.
The applicant lodged a cassation appeal but on 28 November 2002 the Supreme Court dismissed his cassation appeal as unsubstantiated.
(2) there is a reasonable risk that an accused will attempt to induce witnesses to give false testimony or to obstruct the proper conduct of proceedings by any other unlawful means”.
The Code of Criminal Procedure of 1997 (“1997 Code”), which entered into force on 1 September 1998, defines detention on remand as one of the so-called “preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze). The other measures are bail (poręczenie majątkowe), police supervision (dozór policji), guarantee by a responsible person (poręczenie osoby godnej zaufania), guarantee by a social entity (poręczenie społeczne), temporary ban on engaging in a given activity (zawieszenie oskarżonego w określonej działalności) and prohibition to leave the country (zakaz opuszczania kraju).
“Preventive measures may be imposed in order to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings and, exceptionally, also in order to prevent an accused committing another, serious offence; they may be imposed only if evidence gathered shows a significant probability that an accused has committed an offence.”
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that his detention on remand after 1 February 2001 lacked any legal basis as his detention had not been prolonged by the Supreme Court.
2. He further complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand exceeded a reasonable time within the meaning of this provision.
1. The applicant complained that his detention on remand between 1 February 2001 and 26 June 2001 was unlawful in that there was no decision of the Supreme Court to justify his detention. This complaint falls under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, which provides:
The Government submitted that the applicant’s claim was manifestly ill-founded. They underlined that his pre-trial detention from 1 February to 26 June 2001 was “lawful”, as the court issued decisions for every single day of the applicant’s detention during this period. Thus, by a decision of 31 January 2001 the Biskupiec District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 May 2001. Subsequently, on 31 May 2001, the same court decided to prolong the applicant’s detention until 31 July 2001.
The applicant’s observations did not contain any additional information relevant to the issue. He repeated his submission that his detention after 1 February 2001 should have been prolonged by the Supreme Court.
The Court reiterates that the expressions “lawful” and “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” in Article 5 § 1 essentially refer back to national law and state the obligation to conform to the substantive and procedural rules thereof. While it is normally in the first place for the national authorities, notably the courts, to interpret and apply domestic law, it is otherwise in relation to cases where, as under Article 5 § 1, failure to comply with that law entails a breach of the Convention. In such cases the Court can and should exercise a certain power to review whether national law has been observed (see, among other authorities, Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, § 50, ECHR 2000-III).
Turning to the particular circumstances of the instant case, the Court firstly notes that on 20 July 2000 the relevant Article of the 1997 Code was amended and since then the competence to prolong detention beyond the time-limits set out in Article 263 paragraphs 2 and 3 has been vested with the court of appeal within whose jurisdiction the offence in question has been committed and no longer with the Supreme Court. The Court also notes that the Warsaw Court of Appeal examined the request submitted to it by the District Court and found that it was not competent to decide on prolongation of the detention. It held that the District Court, in submitting the request to further prolong the applicant’s detention, had based it on an erroneous interpretation as to what had been the date from which the time-limit, for the purpose of Article 263 § 3 of the 1997 Code, should have been calculated. The Court of Appeal pointed to the well-established jurisprudence of the Supreme Court according to which the applicant had been detained for less then 2 years in connection with this set of criminal proceedings against him and that the previous period of detention during which he had been at the disposal of another court in connection with another set of criminal proceedings was to be excluded for the purposes of Article 263 of the 1997 Code.
The Court further notes that the Biskupiec District Court, in its decisions of 31 January and 31 May 2001, prolonged the applicant’s detention. These decisions were upheld by the appellate courts.
The Court recalls that a period of detention will in principle be lawful if it is carried out pursuant to a court order. The Court does not find it established that the decisions given by the Biskupiec District Court to prolong the applicant’s detention after 1 February 2001 were invalid, and thus that the detention which resulted from it was unlawful under national law. Nor does the Court find that the detention was arbitrary (see Benham v. the United Kingdom, judgment of 10 June 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-III, §§ 46 and 47).
2. The applicant further complained that the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention breached Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant provides:
The Government submitted that the applicant’s pre-trial detention lasted from 1 February 1999 until 26 June 2001. However, they argued that this period had not been inordinately lengthy. The Government stressed that the applicant had been remanded in custody in view of the strong suspicion that he had committed several serious offences of fraud committed in conspiracy with other persons in various locations of the country, and therefore his continued detention had been justified by the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.
They further contended that the applicant’s case was without doubt a very complex one. The bill of indictment against the applicant contained almost 50 pages of legal reasoning; the prosecutor asked the court to hear evidence from 57 witnesses and examine 116 pieces of other evidence at the trial.
The Government were of the opinion that the proceedings in the applicant’s case, despite one short period of inactivity between September 1999 and March 2000, were conducted within a reasonable time and his detention had been subject to frequent review by the domestic courts. The courts had examined his applications for release diligently and had given detailed reasons. The Government considered that, given that on the whole there had been valid grounds for keeping the applicant in custody and that the authorities had acted with due diligence, the requirements of Article 5 § 3 had been satisfied.
Declares admissible, without prejudging the merits, the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of his pre-trial detention;
TELECKI v. POLAND DECISION