Source: http://echr.ketse.com/doc/23755.03-en-20051018/view/
Timestamp: 2020-07-05 23:22:43
Document Index: 769826580

Matched Legal Cases: ['Application no. 23755', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 4', '§ 3']

MACIEJEWSKI v. POLAND
MACIEJEWSKI v. POLAND About Project
Application no. 23755/03
by Maksymilian MACIEJEWSKI
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 July 2003,
The applicant, Mr Maksymilian Maciejewski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Gdańsk, Poland.
On 31 March 1999 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed armed robbery. On 1 April 1999 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that he be detained on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences with which he had been charged (charges of armed robbery and possessing a firearm without a licence). It also considered that there was a risk that the applicant might go into hiding or tamper with evidence or obstruct the proceedings by other unlawful means. Later, several other persons were detained and charged in connection with the same set of offences.
In the course of investigation, the applicant’s detention was prolonged several times.
On 24 June 1999 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 September 1999. The Court relied on the need to obtain and secure further evidence.
On 15 September 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 December 1999, reiterating the grounds previously given for his detention and adding that the measure was also justified by the severity of the anticipated sentence.
On 8 December 1999 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended his detention until 30 March 2000, relying on the grounds previously given for his detention. It stressed the need to obtain and secure further expert evidence. The court also held that it was necessary to inspect the scene of the crime.
On 30 March 2000 the Supreme Court (Sąd Nawyższy), on an application from the Prosecutor General (Prokurator Generalny), extended the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2000. It found that the strong suspicion against him of having committed the serious offences with which he had been charged, the severity of the anticipated sentence and the risk of his tampering with evidence justified holding him in custody. It also relied on the complexity of the case.
On 24 May 2000 the Supreme Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 15 December 2000, repeating the grounds that had been given in the previous decisions.
On 13 December 2000 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s and his 8 co-suspects’ detention pending investigation until 31 March 2001. On 7 March 2001 it ordered that the applicant be held in detention until 31 May 2001. It relied on the grounds stated in the previous decisions.
In the meantime, between 22 January and 16 February 2001, the applicant had been granted access to the case-file. On 21 February 2001 the applicant complained to the Regional Prosecutor that it was impossible for him to read all the materials within the time allowed.
On 24 April 2001 the case-file was made available to him.
On 15 May 2001 the applicant was indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court. The bill of indictment listed 120 charges of attempted homicide and armed robbery, brought against the 19 accused, who were all detained on remand. The case-file comprised of 120 volumes.
Since on 30 March 2001 the applicant’ s detention reached the statutory time-limit of two years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postepowania karnego), further prolongation of his detention was ordered by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal. The relevant decisions were given on 23 May and 24 October 2001, 13 March, 11 September and 18 December 2002 and on 25 June and 17 December 2003 and 23 June 2004. On the last of those dates, the Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 December 2004.
On 15 December 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 March 2005. On 30 March 2005 it extended his detention until 30 June 2005.
In all those decisions the Court of Appeal stated that the grounds originally given for the applicant’s detention were still valid. It especially relied on the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and stressed the complex nature of the case.
During the proceedings the applicant filed numerous but unsuccessful applications for release and applied, likewise unsuccessfully, against the decisions prolonging his detention.
(a) The Code of Criminal Procedure 1969
“A preventive measure shall be immediately quashed or changed if the grounds therefore have ceased to exist or if new circumstances have arisen, which justify quashing a given measure or replacing it with one that is either more or less severe.”
(b) The Code of Criminal Procedure 1997
“1. Preventive measures may be imposed in order to ensure the proper conduct of proceedings and, exceptionally, also in order to prevent an accused’s committing another, serious offence; they may be imposed only if the evidence gathered shows a significant probability that an accused has committed an offence.
“ A decision of the Court of Appeal taken pursuant to paragraph 4 may be appealed against to the Court of Appeal sitting in a panel of three judges.”
2. Sentences applicable in respect to offences of robbery, fraud and acting in an organised criminal group
Pursuant to Article 280 §§ 1 and 2 of the Criminal Code (Kodeks Karny), a person convicted of robbery is liable to a sentence from 2 to 12 years’ imprisonment; in case of armed robbery, the applicable sentence is from 3 to 15 years’ imprisonment.
A person convicted of fraud is liable to a sentence of imprisonment ranging from 6 months to 8 years (Article 286).
Acting in an organised group set up in order to commit offences is an offence under Article 258 of the Criminal Code; the applicable sentence is from 1 month’s to 3 years’ imprisonment or, in case of acting in an armed organised group, from 3 months’ to 5 years’ imprisonment.
1. The applicant complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of his pre-trial detention.
2. He further alleges a breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention in that he was not given sufficient access to the case-file, which affected his defence rights in the trial.
The Court, noting that the complaint falls to be examined under Article 5 § 3, considers that it cannot, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.
2. The applicant further complains that he was not given sufficient access to the case-file, which affected his defence rights in the trial, in breach of Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (b) of the Convention.
“The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law ... “
The Court notes that 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.
It follows that this complaint is inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 § 4.
Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint under Article 5 § 3 concerning the length of his pre-trial detention;
MACIEJEWSKI v. POLAND DECISION