Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/1427.03-en-20051103/view/
Timestamp: 2020-08-11 09:25:45
Document Index: 138820401

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 1427', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1']

TOMCZYK v. POLAND About Project
Application no. 1427/03
by Zbigniew TOMCZYK
The applicant, Mr Zbigniew Tomczyk, is a Polish national who was born in 1964 and lives in Łódź.
On 29 May 2001 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of burglary and obtaining money under false pretences using forged documents. On 31 May 2001 the Radomsko District Court remanded the applicant in custody for 3 months.
Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged on several occasions (in 2001: on 19 August, 25 October, 21 December; in 2002: on 27 February, 29 March, 16 April, 9 May, 27 June, 8 July, 14 August, 13 September and 28 October). The courts based their decisions on the fact that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence concerned and that it had been committed after he had been released from prison where he had served a sentence for a similar crime. His earlier going into hiding was also taken into account.
On 12 March 2003 the Radomsko District Court sentenced the applicant to four years and six months’ imprisonment. On 22 August 2003 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court upheld the judgment. The Attorney General refused to lodge a cassation appeal on behalf of the applicant.
Under Article 18, within six months after the entry into force of this Act, that is, from 17 September 2004, anyone who had lodged an application with the European Court of Human Rights in due time complaining of a violation of the ‘reasonable-time’ requirement contained in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was entitled to lodge a length complaint provided for by the Act, if the application to the Court had been lodged when the proceedings were still pending and if it had not yet been declared admissible by the European Court.
The applicant complains about the length of his pre-trial detention.
The applicant also complains that his right to a hearing within a “reasonable time” has been breached. He invokes Articles 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of the Protocol 4.
1. The applicant complains that the length of the proceedings in his case was unreasonable. He relies on Article 6 § 1 and 14 of the Convention, as well as Article 1 of the Protocol 4. The Court will examine this complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which provides, in so far as relevant:
On 1 March 2005 the Court gave decisions in two leading cases: Charzynski v. Poland no. 15212/03 (criminal proceedings) and Michalak v. Poland no. 24549/03 (civil proceedings), holding that persons complaining about the length of proceedings before the Polish courts were required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention to lodge a complaint about the breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time under the 2004 Act.
2. The applicant complains about the length of his pre-trial detention.
TOMCZYK v. POLAND DECISION