Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/22752.03-en-20050519/view/
Timestamp: 2020-01-21 06:45:01
Document Index: 641473173

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 22752', '§ 4', '§ 3', '§ 93', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3']

MIDERA v. POLAND
MIDERA v. POLAND About Project
Application no. 22752/03
by Artur MIDERA
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 July 2003,
The applicant, Mr Artur Midera, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Częstochowa, Poland.
The applicant was arrested on 24 April 2001. On the following day the Katowice Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) charged him with having participated in an organised armed group led by a certain M.M. which was set up to commit robberies and supply illegal drugs. The Regional Prosecutor relied, inter alia, on evidence given by the State's witnesses (świadek koronny). On the same day the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered the applicant's detention on remand for three months on suspicion of having participated in an organised armed group. It observed that on the basis of witnesses' evidence obtained so far in the investigation there was a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences in question. It pointed also to the risk that the applicant would tamper with evidence. That decision was upheld by the Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 30 May 2001. Subsequently the applicant was also charged with drunken driving.
On 19 July 2001 the Częstochowa Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 23 October 2001. It relied on evidence given by three witnesses who had provided information about the structure of the criminal group at issue and recognised its members. It also noted that given the complexity of the case it was necessary to continue the investigation in order to establish various aspects of the criminal group's activities and determine the responsibility of its individual members. Lastly, it observed that there was a risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings if released.
On 18 October 2001 the Częstochowa Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 10 December 2001. In addition to the grounds previously given, it found that the investigation could not have been terminated due to the large number of suspects, the wide scope of the investigation and the new aspects of the case which had continuously arisen. That decision was upheld on appeal on 14 November 2001.
On 29 November 2001 the Regional Court ordered that the applicant be held in custody until 24 April 2002. It relied on some of the grounds given in the previous decisions. It also noted that his continued detention was necessary in order to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings given the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant and the related risk that he would tamper with evidence if released.
On 9 April 2002 the Katowice Appellate Prosecutor (Prokurator Apelacyjny) made an application to the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) for prolongation of the applicant's detention until 10 June 2002. It relied on the need to obtain evidence from fingerprint and firearm experts and considered that it was also necessary to hold a view of the scene of crime and to confront the suspects with each other. On 17 April 2002 the Katowice Court of Appeal granted that application, pursuant to Article 263 § 4 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On 22 May 2002 the Court of Appeal ordered the further prolongation of the applicant's detention until 10 December 2002. In addition to the grounds previously relied on, it based its decision on the complex nature of the case which involved many charges against a few dozen co-accused and the numerous expert reports. That decision was upheld on appeal by the Court of Appeal, sitting in a different panel of three judges, on 12 June 2002. In its decision, replying to the applicant's plea that he was in need of an orthopaedic surgery, it found that such surgery could be performed in the prison hospital and that his state of health did not justify his release. The applicant's detention was subsequently prolonged on an unspecified later date.
On an unspecified date in February 2003 the Regional Prosecutor submitted a bill of indictment against the applicant and his co-accused to the Częstochowa Regional Court. It requested that the trial court hear evidence from some 70 witnesses.
On 9 April 2003 the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant and his 5 co-accused be held in custody until 24 December 2003. That decision was upheld on appeal on 7 May 2003.
Between 20 August and 18 September 2003 the applicant was held in the hospital of the Warsaw-Mokotów Detention Centre. On 1 September 2003 he underwent orthopaedic surgery.
On 13 December 2003 the Częstochowa Regional Court made an application to the Katowice Court of Appeal for prolongation of the applicant's detention and 5 of his co-accused until 24 June 2004. That application was granted on 17 December 2003. The Court of Appeal emphasised the exceptionally complex nature of the case and the fact that despite the good organisation of the trial it had not been possible to terminate the proceedings. The applicant appealed against that decision, arguing that the charges against him were groundless and invoking the poor state of his health. On 14 January 2004 the Court of Appeal, sitting in a different panel of three judges, upheld the contested decision. In respect of the applicant's state of health, the Court of Appeal noted that the applicant had had surgery scheduled for 17 December 2003 in the hospital of the Warsaw-Mokotów Detention Centre, but that he had refused to be treated in that establishment.
It appears that in 2003 the trial court held a dozen or so hearings, of which three had to be cancelled for reasons which could not be attributed to the court.
On 26 May 2004 the Court of Appeal, on an application from the trial court, prolonged the applicant's detention and that of 5 of his co-accused until 24 December 2004. It upheld all the previous grounds for the applicant's detention. It also found that due to large number of witnesses to be heard, both for the prosecution and the defence, the trial could not have been terminated.
On 15 December 2004 the trial court made another application for extension of the applicant's detention until 24 April 2005. The Court of Appeal granted that application on 22 December 2004.
The applicant's numerous appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and his applications for release were unsuccessful.
It appears that the applicant is still in detention pending trial.
2. Monitoring of the applicant's correspondence
1. On 21 July 2003 the Court received the applicant's letter of 8 July 2003. The envelope bears the following stamps: “Code 118 Received on 09.07.2003. (Kod 118 Wpłynęło dn. 09.07.2003r), “Received for censorship on 14 July 2003 Secretary” (Wpłynęło do cenzury dn. 14 LIP. 2003 Sekretarz) and an illegible signature, and “Received for censorship without control 14 July 2003” (Wpłynęło do cenzury bez kontroli dnia 14 VII 03r.) and an illegible signature.
2. On 6 October 2003 the Court received the applicant's letter of 14 September 2003. The envelope bears the following stamps: “Warsaw-Mokotów Detention Centre received on 16.09.2003” (Areszt Śledczy Warszawa-Mokotów wpłynęło dnia 16.09.2003) and “Received for censorship without control on 24 September 2003” and an illegible signature.
3. On 16 December 2003 the Court received the applicant's letter of 30 November 2003. The envelope bears a stamp that read: “Received for censorship without control on 3 December 2003” and an illegible signature.
4. On 3 February 2004 the Court received the applicant's letter of 17 January 2004. The envelope bears the following stamps: “Częstochowa Detention Centre Received on 20.01.2004” and “Received for censorship without control on 23 January 2004” and an illegible signature and “the Regional Court 42-201 Częstochowa II Section Criminal no. 23/25 Dąbrowskiego Street”.
5. On 9 February 2004 the Court received the applicant's letter of 27 January 2004. The envelope bears two stamps: “Częstochowa Detention Centre Received on 27 January 2004” and “Received for censorship without control on 30 January 2004” and an illegible signature.
6. On 19 March 2004 the Court received the applicant's letter of 24 February 2004. The envelope bears the following stamps: “Częstochowa Detention Centre Received on 24 February 2004” and “Received for censorship Received for censorship without control on 27 February 2004 Secretary” and an illegible signature.
7. On 2 August 2004 the Court received the applicant's letter sent on an unspecified date in July 2004. The envelope bears the following stamps: “Częstochowa Detention Centre Received on 20 July 2004” and “Received for censorship without control on 22 July 2004” and an illegible signature.
8. On 16 February 2005 the Court received the applicant's letter sent on an unspecified date in February 2005. The envelope bears the following stamps: “Częstochowa Detention Centre Received on 03.02.05” and “Received for censorship without control on 4 February 2005” and an illegible signature.
1. Remedies against unreasonable length of the proceedings
2. Preventive measures, including detention on remand
1. The applicant complains that he did not receive adequate medical treatment while in detention. He does not rely on any provision of the Convention.
2. The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention.
3. He also complains, without invoking any provision of the Convention, about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings.
4. In respect of the monitoring of the applicant's correspondence, the Court raises ex officio a complaint about a breach of Article 8 of the Convention.
1. The applicant complains, without invoking any provision of the Convention, that he did not receive adequate medical treatment while in detention.
The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 3 of the Convention which provides:
The Court recalls that this provision cannot be interpreted as laying down a general obligation to release a detainee on health grounds or to place him in a civil hospital to enable him to obtain a particular kind of medical treatment. Nevertheless, under this provision the State must ensure that a person is detained in conditions which are compatible with respect for his human dignity, that the manner and method of the execution of the measure do not subject him to distress or hardship of an intensity exceeding the unavoidable level of suffering inherent in detention and that, given the practical demands of imprisonment, his health and well-being are adequately secured by, among other things, providing him with the requisite medical assistance (Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 93-94, ECHR 2000-X).
The Court firstly observes that the applicant has not submitted any relevant documents related to the nature of his ailments or the recommended course of treatment. On the basis of the available material, the Court notes that in his appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision of 22 May 2002 prolonging his detention, the applicant claimed that he had to undergo orthopaedic surgery. However, the Court of Appeal in its decision of 12 June 2002 considered that the applicant could receive such a treatment in the prison hospital and that his state of health did not justify his release. It transpires from the case-file that on 1 September 2003 the applicant did undergo orthopaedic surgery in the hospital of the Warsaw-Mokotów Detention Centre. Subsequently, the applicant refused to undergo a second surgery which was scheduled for 17 December 2003 in the same establishment.
In the present case, the Court finds no indication of any discernible shortcomings on the part of the authorities in securing adequate medical treatment to the applicant. Consequently, it cannot be said that the applicant was subjected to ill-treatment that attained a sufficient level of severity to come within the scope of Article 3 of the Convention.
2. The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention on remand.
3. The applicant alleges, without relying on any provision of the Convention, that his case was not heard within a “reasonable time”. The Court considers that this complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention which, in its relevant part, provides:
The Court observes that the present application was lodged with the Court when the relevant proceedings were pending before the domestic court and, it appears, that they are still pending before the first-instance court.
The applicant, having been informed by the Registrar of the possibility of lodging a complaint about the length of the proceedings under the 2004 Act, has chosen to avail himself of this remedy.
Accordingly, the complaint about the unreasonable length of the proceedings is premature and must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant's complaint under Article 5 § 3 concerning the length of his pre-trial detention and the complaint under Article 8 concerning a breach of the right to respect for his correspondence raised by the Court ex officio;
MIDERA v. POLAND DECISION