BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[New search]
[Contents list]
[Printable RTF version]
[Help]
FOURTH
SECTION
CASE OF GĘŚLA v. POLAND
(Application
no. 15915/07)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
12 January
2010
This
judgment will become final in the circumstances set out in Article 44
§ 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial
revision.
In the case of Gęśla v. Poland,
The
European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting as a Chamber
composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi
Bianku,ç
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having
deliberated in private on 8 December 2009,
Delivers
the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
- The
case originated in an application
(no. 15915/07) against the
Republic of Poland lodged with the Court
under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”)
by a Polish national, Mr Jacek Gęśla
(“the applicant”), on 23 March 2007.
- The
Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by
their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs.
- On
17 November 2008 the
President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the
application to the Government. It was also decided to rule on the
admissibility and merits of the application at the same time
(Article 29 § 3).
THE FACTS
I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
- The
applicant was born in 1970 and lives in Chełm.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
- On
9 March 2004 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of drug dealing
and uttering threats while acting in an organised criminal gang. On
11 March 2004 the Lublin District Court decided to place the
applicant in pre-trial detention. The court held that there was a
strong likelihood that the applicant committed the offences with
which he was charged.
- On
1 June 2004 the Chełm District Court extended the
applicant's detention. In addition to the grounds originally given,
the court relied on the likelihood that a severe sentence would be
imposed on the applicant and the probability that he would interfere
with the course of the proceedings. On 1 September 2004 the
Chełm District Court again extended the applicant's detention,
relying on the complexity of the investigation.
- Between
3 and 17 February 2005 the applicant served a prison sentence which
had been imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings.
- On
28 February 2005 a bill of indictment was filed with the Chełm
District Court. The applicant was charged with drug dealing and
uttering threats while acting in an organised criminal gang.
- The
first hearing was held on 6 June 2005. Subsequent hearings were held
at regular intervals of one month. On many occasions the trial court
imposed fines on witnesses for failure to appear at hearings. In
addition, some of the witnesses were brought to the court under
police escort.
- The
applicant's detention was subsequently extended on several occasions,
in particular on 7 March, 7 June, 5 September and 5 December 2005.
- Between
21 March 2005 and 21 May 2006 the applicant served two different
prison sentences which had been imposed on him in another set of
criminal proceedings. On 21 May 2006 the applicant began serving a
prison sentence of nine years and six months.
- On
5 June 2006 the Chełm District Court again extended the
applicant's detention.
- On
24 July 2006 the Chełm District Regional Court convicted the
applicant as charged and sentenced him to ten years' imprisonment and
a fine. The applicant appealed.
- On
13 February 2007 the Lublin Regional Court gave judgment, partly
quashing and remitting the District Court's judgment (in respect of
one of the charges).
- On
7 May 2007 the Chełm District Court again extended the
applicant's detention.
- On
7 August 2007 the Chełm District Court gave a decision and
discontinued the applicant's pre-trial detention.
- According
to the information available to the Court at the date of adoption of
the present judgment, the criminal proceedings concerning one of the
charges against the applicant are still pending before the Chełm
District Court.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
- On
25 July 2005 the applicant lodged a complaint under section 5 of 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”).
- It
was dismissed by the Lublin Regional Court on 25 July 2007. The court
stressed that the proceedings had been very complex, that they had
concerned ten co-accused and that evidence had to be obtained from
twenty three witnesses.
II. RELEVANT DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
- The
relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the
excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the
applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are stated in the Court's
decisions in cases of Charzyński v. Poland no. 15212/03
(dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland
no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII and the judgment in the case
of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR
2005-V.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 6 § 1 OF THE
CONVENTION
- The
applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been
incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement, laid
down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“In the determination of his civil rights and
obligations ..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a
reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...”
- The
Government contested that argument.
- The
period to be taken into consideration began on 9 March 2004 and has
not yet ended. It has thus already lasted five years and six months
for two levels of jurisdiction.
A. Admissibility
- The
Court notes that this complaint is not manifestly ill founded
within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. It
further notes that it is not inadmissible on any other grounds. It
must therefore be declared admissible.
B. Merits
1. The applicant
- The
applicant submitted that the proceedings in his case had been
excessively lengthy.
2. The Government
- The
Government submitted that the case had been extremely complex. It
concerned an organised criminal gang. The applicant was charged with
fourteen offences and all of his ten co-accused were detained pending
trial. In addition, the prosecution asked the court to hear evidence
from twenty-three witnesses. They maintained that while indeed there
had been a delay of a few months between the date when the bill of
indictment had been submitted to the court and the date of the first
hearing, it had been caused by a voluminous case file with which the
court had to acquaint itself. In addition, during that period the
District Court had dealt with numerous procedural motions. Successive
hearings had been scheduled without any delay, at regular intervals
of one month.
3. The Court's assessment
- The
Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings
must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and
with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case,
the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities and what
was at stake for the applicant in the dispute (see, among many other
authorities, Frydlender v. France [GC], no. 30979/96, §
43, ECHR 2000-VII).
- The
Court has frequently found violations of Article 6 § 1 of the
Convention in cases raising issues similar to the one in the present
case (see Frydlender, cited above).
- Having
examined all the material submitted to it, the Court considers that
the Government have not put forward any fact or argument capable
of persuading it to reach a different conclusion in the present
case. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court
considers that in the instant case the overall length of the
proceedings was excessive and failed to meet the “reasonable
time” requirement.
- There
has accordingly been a breach of Article 6 § 1.
II. OTHER
ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF THE CONVENTION
- The
applicant's first complaint related to the length of his detention.
He alleged that it had been excessive, relying 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.”
- The
applicant's detention started on 11 March 2004, when he was arrested
on suspicion of drug dealing and uttering threats while acting in an
organised criminal group. On 24 July 2006 the Chełm District
Court partly convicted him as charged. However, it appears from
documents submitted at a later stage that between 3 and 17 February
2005 and after 21 March 2005 the applicant was serving
prison sentences which had been imposed on him in other sets of
criminal proceedings. This period, covered by Article 5 § 1 (a)
of the Convention, must therefore be subtracted from the period of
the applicant's pre-trial detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3
of the Convention. Accordingly, the period to be taken into
consideration amounts to eleven months and fifteen days.
- The
Government raised a preliminary objection regarding non exhaustion
of domestic remedies by the applicant. They maintained that the
applicant could have lodged a constitutional complaint with the
Constitutional Court alleging that Article 263 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, which allowed the extension of pre-trial
detention without any time-limits, was contrary to the Constitution.
They further submitted that the domestic authorities had shown
special diligence and could not be held responsible for the length of
the detention. 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 failed to address the issue of a constitutional complaint.
He 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, Kudła
v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq.,
ECHR 2000-XI, and Bąk v. Poland, 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
complex. In this connection the Court observes that the courts
stressed the need to verify evidence from eleven suspects and twenty
three witnesses, and that there was an extensive body of evidence to
be considered, including opinions from several experts. 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 drug dealing
and uttering threats while acting in an organised criminal gang. As
to the latter charge, the Court reiterates that this constitutes a
factor to be considered when assessing compliance with Article 5 §
3 (see Bąk, cited above, §§ 57 and 60). For
these reasons, the Court also finds that the domestic authorities
cannot be criticised for 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.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
- Article
41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a
violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the
internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only
partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford
just satisfaction to the injured party.”
A. Damage
- The
applicant claimed 20,000 Polish Zlotys (PLN) in respect of
non pecuniary damage.
- The
Government contested the claim.
- The
Court considers that the applicant must have sustained non pecuniary
damage. Ruling on an equitable basis, it awards award him 2,700 euros
(EUR) under that head.
B. Costs and expenses
- The
applicant did not make any claim for costs and expenses involved in
the proceedings.
C. Default interest
- The
Court considers it appropriate that the default interest should be
based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to
which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
- Declares the complaint concerning the excessive
length of the proceedings admissible and the remainder of the
application inadmissible;
- Holds that there has been a violation of Article
6 § 1 of the Convention;
- Holds
(a) that
the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months
from the date on which the judgment becomes final in accordance with
Article 44 § 2 of the Convention, EUR 2,700 (two
thousand seven hundred euros) in respect of non-pecuniary damage,
plus any tax that may be chargeable to be converted into Polish
Zlotys at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that
from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement
simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal
to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the
default period plus three percentage points;
- Dismisses the remainder of the applicant's claim
for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 12 January 2010, pursuant
to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President
