Search
document

Document text Analytics

MIKULSKI v. POLAND

Doc ref: 27914/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3506

Document date: February 26, 1997

Inbound citations: 0
•
Cited paragraphs: 0
•
Outbound citations: 1

MIKULSKI v. POLAND

Doc ref: 27914/95 • ECHR ID: 001-3506

Document date: February 26, 1997

Cited paragraphs only

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application No. 27914/95

by Piotr MIKULSKI

against Poland

The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting

in private on 26 February 1997, the following members being present:

Mrs. G.H. THUNE, President

MM. J.-C. GEUS

G. JÖRUNDSSON

J.-C. SOYER

H. DANELIUS

F. MARTINEZ

M.A. NOWICKI

I. CABRAL BARRETO

D. SVÁBY

P. LORENZEN

E. BIELIUNAS

E.A. ALKEMA

Ms. M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber

Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection

of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;

Having regard to the application introduced on 14 November 1994

by Piotr MIKULSKI against Poland and registered on 20 July 1995 under

file No. 27914/95;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules

of Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1954, is currently

imprisoned in Bialol*ka prison.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be

summarised as follows:

On 7 September 1993 the Warsaw - Praga Pólnoc Public Prosecutor

instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant. At an

unspecified later date the Public Prosecutor detained the applicant on

remand on suspicion of robbery and assault, committed in August 1993.

On 21 February 1994 the applicant was placed in a psychiatric

hospital for observation. He remained there until 10 May 1994.

In a letter of 1 June 1994, in reply to the Ombudsman's inquiry

about the conduct of the proceedings, the Praga Pólnoc District

Prosecutor stated that the psychiatric observation had been completed

but the relevant expert opinion had not been prepared yet. Immediately

after the opinion was ready, the investigations would be terminated and

the bill of indictment lodged with the court. The applicant's

allegations about the unfairness of the investigations were, in the

Prosecutor's opinion, unfounded and motivated by the applicant's wish

to avoid criminal responsibility.

In a letter of 9 June 1994 the Warsaw District Bar replied to the

applicant's complaint concerning lack of diligence on the part of the

officially appointed lawyer and stated that there were no grounds for

finding that he lacked diligence.

Apparently in June 1994 the investigations were completed and the

Public Prosecutor prepared the bill of indictment.

In a letter of 29 July 1994, in reply to the applicant's

complaint about the length of the proceedings, the Ombudsman stated

that the indictment would soon be lodged with the court. He further

stated that the applicant had undergone six weeks of psychiatric

observation, prolonged for further six weeks as he had refused to

cooperate with the physicians.

On 11 August 1994 the Warsaw Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki)

dismissed the applicant's request for release, considering that there

were sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion that he had committed

a serious offence, supported in particular by the evidence given by the

victim.

On 22 August 1994 the applicant complained to the Warsaw Regional

Court about the delay in the proceedings. In reply the Court informed

the applicant on 29 August 1994 that the dates of hearings were fixed

following the chronological order in which the cases had been filed

with the Court.

On 22 September 1994 the Warsaw Court of Appeal (S*d Apelacyjny)

dismissed the applicant's appeal against the decision of 11 August

1994, considering that the lower Court was right in finding that there

were grounds for reasonable suspicion against the applicant, including

the evidence given by the victim and the witnesses. The serious

character of the offence also justified continuation of the applicant's

detention.

On 27 December 1994 the applicant complained to the Warsaw

Regional Court of the length of the criminal proceedings.

On 5 January 1995 the Court informed the applicant that the first

hearing could be held in June 1995.

On 9 October 1995 the Warsaw Regional Court refused to release

the applicant from detention on remand. The Court reiterated that

there were sufficient grounds for reasonable suspicion that the

applicant had committed the offence concerned. Efforts had been made

by the Court to ensure that the witnesses, who had apparently failed

to appear, would be present at the next hearing.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 paras. 3 and 4 of the

Convention about the excessive length of his detention.

He further complains under Article 6 of the Convention of the

length of the proceedings. He submits that he is not guilty and that

the proceedings so far were unfair in that the Public Prosecutor

refused to hear certain witnesses. He further alleges that his

officially appointed lawyer did not act with diligence when

representing him in the investigation.

The applicant complains under Article 13 of the Convention that

he does not have any effective remedy at his disposal to complain about

the length of the proceedings.

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains under Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the

Convention that the criminal investigations against him were unfair.

The Commission recalls that the conformity of a trial with the

requirements of Article 6 para. 1 (Art. 6-1) of the Convention must be

assessed on the basis of the trial as a whole (No. 9000/80, Dec.

11.3.82, D.R. 28, p. 127). However, the Commission notes that in the

present case the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still

pending. The complaint is therefore premature.

It follows that this part of the application is manifestly ill-

founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the

Convention.

2. The applicant further complains under Article 5 paras. 3 and 4

(Art. 5-3, 5-4) of the Convention about the excessive length of his

detention and under Article 6 of the length of the proceedings. The

applicant also complains under Article 13 (Art. 13) of the Convention

that he does not have any effective remedy at his disposal to complain

about the length of the proceedings.

The Commission considers that it cannot, on the basis of the

file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is

therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 48 para. 2 (b) of the

Rules of Procedure, to give notice of this complaint to the respondent

Government.

For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,

DECIDES TO ADJOURN the examination of the applicant's

complaints concerning the length of the detention and of the

criminal proceedings and lack of an effective remedy in this

respect;

DECLARES INADMISSIBLE the remainder of the application.

M.-T. SCHOEPFER G.H. THUNE

Secretary President

to the Second Chamber of the Second Chamber

LEXI

Lexploria AI Legal Assistant