Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/35833.03-en-20051018/view/
Timestamp: 2020-07-03 20:20:08
Document Index: 545156178

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 35833', '§ 3', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 36', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3']

DZITKOWSKI v. POLAND About Project
Application no. 35833/03
by Zygmunt DZITKOWSKI
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 October 2003,
The applicant, Mr Zygmunt Dzitkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1943 and lives in Sopot.
On 4 April 1991 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed a number of robberies. On 6 April 1991 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor remanded him in custody for a period of three months. His detention was subsequently prolonged on several occasions by the Gdańsk Regional Court.
On 11 February 1992 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court on four counts of robbery, one count of forgery, one count of giving false evidence and one count of fraud.
On 12 December 1994 the applicant was released from detention.
On 24 April 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court delivered its judgment. It convicted the applicant of four counts of robbery and one count of forgery and sentenced him to six years’ imprisonment and a fine. The applicant appealed against that judgment.
On 4 February 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
The applicant was arrested on 22 or 23 October 2000 on suspicion of armed robbery.
On 24 October 2000 the Gdańsk District Court remanded the applicant in custody for a period of three months in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed armed robbery. That suspicion was supported by evidence obtained in the course of the investigation. The District Court further held that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the investigation and go into hiding. It also had regard to the severity of the anticipated penalty.
Later, several other persons were detained and charged in connection with the same investigation conducted by the Department of Organised Crime of the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor’s Office.
On 9 January 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged his detention until 31 March 2001. It found that the grounds previously relied on were still valid. In addition, it held that the prolongation of his detention was justified by the need to obtain evidence, including expert reports, from many sources.
On 15 March 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court extended the applicant’s and his four co-suspects’ detention until 31 May 2001. In addition to the grounds previously invoked, it considered that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would induce the witnesses and victims to give false testimonies.
On 10 May 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor terminated the investigation. On 15 May 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court on one count of armed robbery which had been committed in an organised armed criminal group. The bill of indictment listed 120 charges brought against 19 defendants, who all were detained on remand. The case-file comprised 114 volumes. The prosecution asked the court to hear evidence from 366 witnesses. The principal witness was a certain A.Ł., who was indicted together with all the defendants but gave evidence against them.
On 17 May 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court ordered that the applicant be detained until 31 October 2001, finding that it was necessary in order to prevent him – and his other 12 detained co-defendants – from evading justice or tampering with evidence. It also referred to the complexity of the case stemming from the number of defendants and the number of witnesses to be heard.
On 16 October 2001 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 March 2002, considering that the grounds originally given for remanding him in custody were still valid. In respect of the danger of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses, the Regional Court held, having regard to evidence given by a witness R.G., that some of the defendants had attempted to induce witnesses to give false testimonies.
Further prolongation of the applicant’s detention were ordered by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 27 March 2002 (up to 30 September 2002) and on 26 September 2002 (up to 24 October 2002). In both those decisions, the Regional Court considered that the applicant’s detention was the only measure which could prevent him from interfering with the proceedings.
Since on 24 October 2002 the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time-limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, further prolongation of the applicant’s detention was ordered by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. The relevant decisions were given on 2 October 2002 (extending his detention until 31 December 2002), on 18 December 2002 (prolonging that period until 30 June 2003), on 25 June 2003 (extending his detention up to 31 December 2003) and on 17 December 2003 (ordering his continued detention until 30 June 2004).
In its decision of 2 October 2002 prolonging the applicant’s detention, the Court of Appeal considered that holding him in custody was necessary at least until he had given evidence.
In its decision of 25 June 2003 extending the applicant’s detention, the Court of Appeal observed that the trial could not have been terminated due to obstructiveness on the part of the defendants who filed numerous requests challenging the trial court. It further considered that although the applicant and other defendants were free to make use of their procedural rights, the abuse of those rights had undoubtedly led to delays in the trial. It also noted that the trial court had taken various procedural steps in order to accelerate the proceedings.
In its decision of 29 January 2004 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 17 December 2003 prolonging his detention, the Court of Appeal held that Article 258 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure established a presumption to the effect that the likelihood of a severe penalty being imposed on the applicant might induce him to obstruct the proceedings1. It added that the risk of tampering with witnesses which existed in the present case did not have to be supported by any concrete facts, but resulted from the above presumption.
On 15 January 2003 the applicant and 17 of his co-defendants unsuccessfully challenged the judges and lay members of the trial court.
In the course of the proceedings the applicant made numerous, unsuccessful applications for release, including on the ground that his detention entailed harsh consequences for his family. He appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against refusals to release him and decisions extending his detention.
It appears that on 31 August 2004 the applicant was released.
1. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention in the first set of criminal proceedings against him.
2. The applicant also complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention in the second set of criminal proceedings against him.
3. The applicant further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of both sets of the criminal proceedings against him.
4. He also complains under Articles 6 § 3(b) of the Convention that he was not afforded sufficient time for consultation of the case-files and thus did not have adequate time for the preparation of his defence in respect of both sets of the criminal proceedings against him.
The Court notes that the applicant was arrested on 4 April 1991 on suspicion of having committed a number of robberies and subsequently detained. He was released from detention on 12 December 1994.
However, the Court recalls that Poland’s declaration recognising the right of individual petition took effect on 1 May 1993. Thus, the period of the applicant’s detention before 1 May 1993 lies outside its jurisdiction ratione temporis.
In respect of the subsequent period, the Court notes that the applicant introduced his application on 22 October 2003, while his detention ended on 12 December 1994. Thus, this part of his complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
It follows that the complaint under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention made in respect of the first set of proceedings is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
The Court observes that the present application was lodged with the Court when both sets of the proceedings complained of were pending before the domestic courts and that they are still pending before them.
The Court has already examined those remedies for the purposes of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and found them effective in respect of complaints about the excessive length of judicial proceedings in Poland. In particular, it considered that they were capable both of preventing the alleged violation of the right to a hearing within a reasonable time or its continuation, and of providing adequate redress for any violation that has already occurred (see Charzyński v. Poland (dec.), no. 15212/03, §§ 36-42).
It follows that the complaint under Article 6 § 1 about the unreasonable length of both sets of the criminal proceedings must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.
4. The applicant also complains under Articles 6 § 3(b) of the Convention that he was not afforded sufficient time for consultation of the case-files and thus did not have adequate time for the preparation of his defence in respect of both sets of the criminal proceedings against him.
The Court notes that both sets of the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending. Accordingly, the applicant still can, and should, put the substance of the complaint before the domestic authorities and ask for appropriate relief.
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the excessive length of his pre-trial detention in respect of the second set of the criminal proceedings against him;
DZITKOWSKI v. POLAND DECISION