Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/20315.04-en-20060504/view/
Timestamp: 2020-07-02 06:34:27
Document Index: 78841008

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 20315', '§ 1', '§ 28', '§ 1', '§ 67', '§ 2']

WIERZBA v. POLAND About Project
Application no. 20315/04
by Sławomir WIERZBA
The applicant, Mr Sławomir Wierzba, is a Polish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Malbork, Poland.
1. Criminal proceedings for robbery and assault committed in May 1998
On 25 June 1998 the applicant was detained on remand on suspicion of committing robbery and assault. On 1 September 2000, after taking evidence from numerous (at least 16) witnesses in the case and considering the psychiatric expert opinions, the Gdańsk District Court found the applicant guilty as charged and imposed a sentence of 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. The judgment was upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 28 February 2003. On 21 July 2004 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation lodged by the applicant, finding it manifestly ill-founded.
2. Criminal proceedings for robbery committed in April 2002
On 17 April 2002 the Gdańsk District Court detained the applicant on remand in view of a reasonable suspicion of his having committed robbery and attempted escape, the court finding the detention to be the only measure guaranteeing that the applicant would not collude with other co-accused and thus interfere with the course of justice.
Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged on several occasions (on 15 July and 15 October 2002, on 15 January, 10 April and 9 October 2003, on 15 January, 11 and 23 March and 29 June 2004 and on 25 January 2005). The subsequent decisions were based on the persistence of the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the crime and on the existence of a real danger of absconding since the applicant had already attempted to escape. Moreover, the court found it probable that, given the charges against him; the applicant would interfere with the course of justice and hence his detention was necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the investigation.
The applicant filed numerous but unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging his detention.
The decision of the first-instance court was given on 28 July 2004. It transpires from the case-file that the applicant has lodged an appeal against it and that the proceedings are currently pending before the Gdańsk Regional Court.
On 11 February 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint under 2004 Act about the breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. Since the first-instance judgment in the case had been given before the 2004 Act came into force, the Gdańsk Regional Court examined only the conduct of the appellate proceedings and found no delays for which the relevant court could be held responsible.
(a) The Code of Criminal Procedure 1997
1. The applicant complains about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention in the criminal proceedings for robbery committed in April 2002.
2. He also complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that in both sets of criminal proceedings his right to a “fair hearing” has been breached and that the length of those proceedings was excessive.
3. He further complains, invoking Article 13 of the Convention and without additional specification, that his right to an effective remedy has been breached.
2. The applicant further complains about the unfairness of both sets of the criminal proceedings against him and refers to their unfavourable outcome.
The Court observes that in this complaint the applicant does not allege any particular failure to respect his right to a fair hearing but objects to the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings.
a) Insofar the complaint relates to the criminal proceedings for robbery and beating committed in May 1998, the Court recalls that, according to Article 19 of the Convention, its duty is to ensure the observance of the engagements undertaken by the States Parties to the Convention. In particular, it is not its function to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by a national court, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by the Convention (see García Ruiz v. Spain [GC], no 30544/96, ECHR 1999-I, § 28).
The Court does not consider that the unfavourable outcome of the proceedings had in itself any bearing on the applicant’s right to a fair trial.
b) As regards the criminal proceedings against the applicant for robbery committed in April 2002, it must be noted that this set of proceedings is currently pending before the Regional Court and therefore the complaint about its outcome has to be considered as premature.
3. Further the applicant alleges that the length of both sets of the criminal proceedings against him: for robbery and assault committed in 1998 and robbery committed in 2002, was unreasonable. He relies on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant:
a) As regards the criminal proceedings for robbery committed in 1998, the Court observes that the proceedings in question were terminated on 21 July 2004, which is less than 3 years after the entry into force of the Law of 17 June 2004 (“the 2004 Act”). It follows that the applicant was and still is entitled to lodge a claim under Article 417 in conjunction with Article 442 of the Civil Code for damages in respect of the protracted length of judicial proceedings (see Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 67 – 72).
b) Insofar the complaint concerns the length of the criminal proceedings for robbery committed in 2002, the Court considers that it cannot on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint. It is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
4. The applicant finally complains without further specification that his right to an effective remedy under Article 13 of the Convention has been breached.
Taking into account the nature of this complaint, it appears that the applicant has merely restated under this Article his complaints about the procedure followed and the outcome of his case. Therefore the Court finds that there is no separate issue under Article 13.
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention and the length of the criminal proceedings for robbery committed in 2002;
WIERZBA v. POLAND DECISION