Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/75107.01-en-20051018/view/
Timestamp: 2020-07-11 20:20:43
Document Index: 18193458

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 75107', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1']

DOMBEK v. POLAND About Project
Application no. 75107/01
by Jacek DOMBEK
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 October 1999,
The applicant, Mr Jacek Dombek, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and is at present detained in the Zielona Góra prison.
1. First set of criminal proceedings (“the Bydgoszcz case”)
On 9 July 1996 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand. On 12 August 1996 the Kędzierzyn-Koźle District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) released the applicant.
On 20 October 1997 the applicant was again arrested by the police. On 21 October 1997 the Częstochowa District Court decided to detain him on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed several offences acting in an organised group of criminals.
The applicant’s appeal against this decision was dismissed by the Częstochowa Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) on 6 November 1997. The appeal lodged by his lawyer was dismissed on 20 November 1997.
On 8 December 1997 the Częstochowa Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s pre-trial detention reiterating the grounds originally given for his detention and adding that the measure was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the investigation.
On 4 March 1998 the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) further prolonged his detention on remand. That decision was upheld by the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) on 24 April 1998.
Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was prolonged by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 8 July 1998. The court considered that the severity of the anticipated penalty and the risk of collusion justified keeping him in custody.
On 11 September 1998 the Supreme Court allowed an application made by the Prosecutor General under Article 263 of the 1997 Code of the Criminal Proceedings (“1997 Code”) and further prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand. The Supreme Court considered that the reasonable suspicion of his having committed the offences in question and the risk of collusion justified keeping the applicant in custody to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court also considered that the investigation could not be terminated earlier due to circumstances for which the authorities could not be held responsible such as the complexity of the case and the severity of the offences.
It appears that at an unspecified later date the applicant and 14 co-accused were indicted before the Bydgoszcz Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
On 11 January 1999 the Częstochowa Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 June 1999 reiterating the grounds previously given for the applicant’s detention.
On 23 June 1999 the Bygodszcz Regional Court decided to prolong until 30 September 1999 the detention on remand with respect to the applicant and his 14 co-accused. It considered, for the same reasons as previously given, that only keeping the applicant in the detention would secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The applicant appealed.
The applicant’s trial started on 24 August 1999 and continued for three days. It appears that subsequently the hearing was adjourned.
On 27 August 1999 the Bygdoszcz Regional Court examined the applicant’s appeal against its own decision of 23 June 1999 and partly allowed it. The court considered that the pre-trial detention of the applicant should be prolonged only until 17 September 1999. It established that in assessing the length of the applicant’s detention with respect to the present case, for the purpose of the time-limits provided by Article 263 of the 1997 Code, the period between 9 July and 12 August 1996 should have been added.
Subsequently, as the length of 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, the Regional Court made applications to the Supreme Court asking for the applicant’s detention to be prolonged beyond that term.
On 16 September 1999 the Bydgoszcz Detention Centre asked the Supreme Court whether any decision had been given in the applicant’s case. On the same date the President of Chamber III of the Supreme Court informed the Detention Centre by fax that the session on prolongation of the applicant’s detention had been scheduled for 1 October 1999. The President further noted that on the basis of the transitional provisions introducing the 1997 Code, the applicant’s detention should be ipso jure prolonged until the date of the Supreme Court’s session.
On 22 September 1999 the applicant’s lawyer submitted pleadings to the Supreme Court in which he argued that the applicant had been illegally detained as the detention order given on 27 August 1999 had expired on 17 September 1999 and therefore after this date he should have been released. In particular he maintained that the transitional provisions were not applicable in the applicant’s case and that the 1997 Code did not contain a provision which would allow detention on the basis of a fax sent by the Supreme Court.
On 1 September 1999 the Supreme Court held the session and prolonged the applicant’s detention until 27 February 2000 relying on the strong suspicion against the applicant, the complexity of the case and the need to continue the process of gathering the evidence.
On 10 February and 24 May 2000 the Supreme Court further prolonged the applicant’s detention reiterating the grounds previously given. In the first of those decisions the Supreme Court added:
“...There is no evidence that could prove [the applicant’s] assertion that his wife and children ‘would soon have nothing to eat’.
Moreover, it should be noted that there is a particular ground for which the pre-trial detention with respect to [the applicant] should not be lifted. From the information obtained by the Presiding Judge it appears that [the applicant] might obstruct the proceedings.”
Subsequently, the Bydgoszcz Regional Court made several applications to the Court of Appeal asking that the applicant’s detention be prolonged as, following an amendment to the 1997 Code the Supreme Court, it was no longer competent to prolong the detention beyond the statutory time-limit of 2 years as laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code.
On 27 September 2000 the Gdansk Court of Appeal granted the application and prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 30 December 2000. The court relied in particular on the complexity of the case and the conduct of the accused who contributed to the prolongation of the proceedings. The court established as follows:
“Of course, the applicant’s detention for over three years in this case requires particular attention to the process of gathering evidence, above all, to examine without further delay the defence motions concerning evidence. However, in the light of the proceedings as a whole the conduct of the Regional Courts should be assessed positively”.
On 21 December 2000 as well as 25 April and 20 June 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention. In addition to the strong probability that he had committed the offences, the court considered that the proceedings had been conducted diligently and only the applicant’s detention would guarantee the proper conduct of the final stage of the proceedings.
Between 15 February and 15 October 2001 the applicant served a prison sentence ordered by the Inowrocław District Court in another set of criminal proceedings against him.
During his pre-trial detention the applicant lodged several hundreds of applications for release. However, these applications and his appeals against the decisions to prolong the detention on remand were to no avail.
On 27 September 2001 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court gave judgment. The trial court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to eight years’ imprisonment. The applicant and prosecutor appealed.
On 17 June 2003 the Gdansk Court of Appeal allowed the appeals and quashed the impugned judgment. The case was remitted to the Bydgoszcz Regional Court which on 14 January 2004 stayed the proceedings because the other set of criminal proceedings before the Zielona Góra Regional Court were pending and the applicant could not have been transported to the Bygdoszcz Detention Centre.
On 25 May 2005 the Bydgoszcz Regional Court resumed the proceedings. The proceedings are pending before that court.
2. Second set of criminal proceedings (“the Zielona Góra case”)
On 11 September 1991 the applicant was arrested by the police in connection with criminal proceedings pending against him. On the same date the Zielona Góra Regional Prosecutor decided to detain him on remand.
On 12 July 1994 the Zielona Góra Regional Court acquitted the applicant.
On 14 December 1994 the applicant was released from detention.
On 24 January 1996 the Poznań Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Prosecutor.
Between December 1997 and November 1999 the prosecutor stayed the proceedings.
On 30 January 2001 the Poznań Court of Appeal decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed, with an accomplice, robbery and three offences of homicide.
The applicant appealed, but on 13 January 2001 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed it.
On 19 April, 24 July and 25 October 2001 and 24 April, 23 July and 24 October 2002 as well as on 22 January 2003 the Poznań Court of Appeal further prolonged his detention. The court held that the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, the severity of the anticipated sentence and the need to secure the proper conduct of investigation justified keeping the applicant in the custody.
On an unspecified date in 2003 the applicant was indicted before the Zielona Góra Regional Court.
On 26 March 2003 the Poznań Court of Appeal further prolonged the applicant’s detention. It appears that, subsequently, the applicant’s detention was prolonged.
On 28 April 2005 the trial court gave judgment. The applicant was convicted as charged and sentenced to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.
The applicant requested that the written reasons for the judgment be prepared by the trial court with the intention to lodge an appeal.
2. The remedy for unreasonable length of proceedings1
1. The applicant complains, under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, that between 17 September and 1 October 1999, in the criminal proceedings before the Bydgoszcz Regional Court, he had been deprived of his liberty without any court order.
2. He further complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the courts have prolonged his pre-trial detention beyond a reasonable term and that the reasons given for those decisions were identical.
3. The applicant complains that the length of both sets of criminal proceedings have been unreasonable. Finally, he complains that the proceedings in his cases have been unfair in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
1. The applicant complains that his detention on remand between 17 September and 1 October 1999 was unlawful in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention.
2. The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his pre-trial detention was unreasonable and that the courts failed to give sufficient reasons for their decisions.
3. He further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of both sets of criminal proceedings exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of this provision and that in both cases he did not have a “fair trial”.
With regard to the complaint concerning alleged unfairness of the proceedings, the Court notes that the first set of criminal proceedings against the applicant is pending before the Bydgoszcz Regional Court and the second set before the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the applicant still can, and should, put the substance of the complaint before the domestic authorities and ask for appropriate relief.
As regards the complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings, the Court observes that the present application was lodged with the Court when the relevant proceedings were pending before the domestic court and that both sets of criminal proceedings are still pending following the applicant’s appeals.
It further observes that, pursuant to section 18 of the 2004 Act, it was open to persons such as the applicant in the present case whose case was pending before the Court to lodge, within six months from 17 September 2004, a complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings with the relevant domestic court, provided that their application to the Court had been lodged in the course of the impugned proceedings and that it had not yet been declared admissible. Moreover, given that both sets of proceedings complained of are still pending, nothing prevents the applicant from lodging such a complaint even after the expiry of the time-limit set by the transitional rule, in accordance with the general provisions of the 2004 Act.
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning unlawfulness of his detention on remand and the length of the pre-trial detention;
DOMBEK v. POLAND DECISION