FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 43005/09
by Paweł Piotr WĘGRECKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:

and Fatoş AracıDeputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 July 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Paweł Piotr Węgrecki, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Łódź. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A.  The criminal proceedings - bill of indictment of 10 March 2009
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 9 October 2006 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been a member of an organised criminal gang and had committed many offences. A wanted notice was issued and he was sought by the police.
On 18 April 2007 the applicant was arrested by the police.
Between 18 and 30 April 2007 the applicant was serving a 12 days' sentence of imprisonment imposed in another set of criminal proceedings against him.
On 26 April 2007 the Łódź District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand. The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and the high probability that a heavy sentence would be imposed on him. It also considered that there was a risk that the applicant might interfere with the course of proceedings and bring pressure to bear on witnesses.
On 26 April 2007 an expert submitted a medical opinion to the prosecutor finding that the applicant's health condition was compatible with detention.
Subsequently, the Łódź Regional Court extended the applicant's detention on 26 June, 18 September and 18 December 2007. The court relied on the grounds invoked above and on the particular complexity of the case involving many co-accused, members of an armed gang.
Between 12 June 2007 and 12 June 2009 the applicant served a prison sentence imposed by the Łódź District Court in another set of criminal proceedings against him.
In 2008 the applicant's pre-trial detention was extended on 26 March, 9 April, 18 June, 22 October and 23 December.
On 10 March 2009 the applicant and 27 co-accused were indicted before the Łódź Regional Court on multiple charges related to burglaries, thefts, extortions, kidnappings, robberies, drug dealing and stolen cars, committed while acting in an organised, armed criminal gang. The bill of indictment was 350-pages-long.
On 30 March 2009 and 21 December 2009 the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant's detention. The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged and a high probability that a heavy sentence would be imposed on him.
The applicant's appeals against the decision extending his pre-trial detention and requests for release were unsuccessful.
The applicant failed to lodge a complaint about the length of the proceedings under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”).
The applicant's trial is pending before the first-instance court and he remains in detention.
B.  Relevant domestic law and practice
1.  Pre-trial detention
The relevant domestic law and practice regarding the imposition of detention on remand (), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called “preventive measures” () at the material time are stated in the Court's judgments in the cases of , no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006 and, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.
2.  Length of proceedings
'
COMPLAINTS
1.  The applicant complained under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings.
2.  In addition the applicant complained under Articles 2 and 3 about the alleged lack of proper health care in detention.
THE LAW
1. The applicant complained that the length of his pre-trial detention had been excessive. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which provides as follows:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be ... entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
on 18 April 200718 and 30 April 2007 and between 12 June 2007 and 12 June 2009 the applicant 
The Government submitted a preliminary objection that the applicant failed to exhaust the available domestic remedies since he had not appealed against some of the decisions extending his detention remand. They further maintained that the domestic authorities had shown special diligence. There was a strong likelihood that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged. In addition there was a serious risk of the applicant going into hiding since the authorities had had to search for the applicant for six months by means of a wanted notice. They also stressed that the proceedings had been very complex as they had concerned a large number of co-accused and numerous witnesses had been heard. Lastly, they were of the opinion that the length of the applicant's detention was closely connected with the proper conduct of the proceedings and the circumstances of the case.
The applicant maintained that his detention had been excessively long.
The Court does not find it necessary to examine the objection as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies raised by the Government, as this complaint is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.
The Court firstly reiterates that the general principles regarding the right “to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial”, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been set out in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, , no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI, and , no. 7870/04, §§ 56-65, 16 January 2007).
Turning to the circumstances of the instant case, the Court notes that the grounds given by the judicial authorities to justify the applicant's continuous detention satisfied the requirement of being “relevant” and “sufficient”. It further notes that his detention was reviewed by the courts at regular intervals and that the case was very complex. In this connection the Court observes that the courts stressed the need to verify evidence from twenty eight suspects and numerous witnesses, and that there was an extensive body of evidence to be considered. The Court also accepts that the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences, together with the likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed on him, warranted his initial detention.
Lastly, the Court observes that the applicant was charged with multiple offences committed while acting in an organised criminal gang. As to these charges, the Court reiterates that they constitute a factor to be considered when assessing compliance with Article 5 § 3 (see , cited above, §§ 57 and 60).
For these reasons, the Court also finds that the domestic authorities cannot be criticised of failure to observe “special diligence” in the handling of the applicant's case.
In view of the above considerations and in the light of the criteria established in its case-law in similar cases, the Court considers that the applicant's detention does not disclose any appearance of a breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. This complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention
2.  The applicant further complained that the criminal proceedings against him had lasted an unreasonably long time. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which, in so far as relevant reads as follows:
“In the determination of ... any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
The Court reiterates that pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention it may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted. In this connection, the Court observes that the applicant failed to make proper use of the remedy under the 2004 Act.
3.  Lastly, the applicant complained about lack of proper medical care in prison.
However, the Court considers that this complaint lacks substantiation. It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Declares the application inadmissible.
	Fatoş Aracı	
	Deputy 	President