FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 51799/99 by Cezary SOBCZUK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2003 as a Chamber composed of

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Mr J. Borrego Borrego , judges ,

and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 February 1999,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a Polish national, who was born in 1970 and lives in Biała Podlaska , Poland. The respondent Government were represented by Mr K. Drzewicki , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 21 April 1993 the applicant was taken into custody on suspicion of forgery.

On 19 August 1993 he was released on bail.

On 31 December 1993 the bill of indictment was submitted to the Lublin Regional Court ( sąd wojewódzki ).

The court held hearings on 19 August and 6 September 1994. The applicant did not attend them.

On 6 September 1994 the court ordered the detention on remand of the applicant. It made a reference to his hiding and obstructing the proceedings. The court adjourned the examination of the case. In October and November 1994 the police searched for the applicant.

On 15 November 1995 the court stayed the proceedings due to the absence of the applicant. On 26 October 1995 it resumed the examination of the case in so far as it concerned the other accused persons.

On 16 January 1995 the applicant was apprehended in Belarus. On 1 June 1995 a Belarussian court convicted him of theft and sentenced him to four years’ imprisonment in a labour camp.

On 9 January 1996 the Belarussian authorities handed over the applicant to the Polish authorities and it was agreed that he would serve the remaining part of his sentence in Poland.

On 17 January 1996 the Lublin Regional Court resumed the proceedings against the applicant and scheduled a hearing for 15 February 1996. However, the hearing was adjourned on the grounds of the sickness of one of his co-accused.

On 13 February 1996 the court ordered the applicant’s psychiatric examination, considering that his experiences in Belarus could have affected his mental health.

On 28 October 1996 the Warsaw Regional Court ordered the execution of the remaining part of the sentence ordered by the Belarussian court in a Polish prison.

On 4 April 1997 the Lublin Regional Court held a hearing. On 22 April 1997 it adjourned the examination of charges against another accused person, S.M., to a separate set of proceedings.

On 29 April 1997 the applicant lodged a request for release. On 6 May 1997 the court refused that request, pointing out that since 1994 the proceedings could not be conducted because of the applicant’s failure to attend hearings and his commission of an offence abroad.

On 10 June 1997, in a decision refusing another such request, the court observed that since 9 January 1996 the applicant had not been detained on remand, but had been serving the sentence of the Belarussian court.

The hearing scheduled for 4 June 1997 was adjourned. It was held on 25 August 1997.

On 11 September 1997 the court refused the applicant’s further request for release. It referred to the severity of the punishment faced by him and the necessity to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings.

On 6 October and 13 November 1997 the court held hearings.

On 17 January 1998 the applicant finished serving the sentence imposed in Belarus.

On 27 January 1998 the court decided to continue his detention until 30 June 1998. It relied on the severity of the punishment faced by the applicant and the necessity to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings. The court made reference to the instances of obstructing the proceedings by the applicant.

On 18 February 1998 it held a hearing, at which it ordered the examination of a witness by another court.

On 23 June 1998 the court refused the applicant’s request for release and prolonged his detention until 31 October 1998. It invoked the grounds on which it had relied in the decision of 27 January 1998.

On 14 July 1998 the court refused another such request. It made a reference to the previous decisions concerning the detention and the grounds therefor . The court pointed out that there were no guarantees that the applicant would not obstruct the proceedings, if released.

On 30 October 1998 it prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 January 1999. The court considered that the evidence collected in the course of the proceedings showed that the charges laid against the applicant were sufficiently justified and that the necessity to ensure the proper course of the proceedings called for further detention.

On 11 December 1998, in reply to the applicant’s complaints, the President of the Regional Court pointed out that the prolongation of the proceedings was caused by the amount of evidence contained in the case file and the fact that a certain witness had to be heard by a different court.

The hearing scheduled for 6 January 1999 was adjourned because of the sickness of one of the co-accused.

On 12 January 1999 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 31 March 1999. It noted that the hearing scheduled for January 1999 had had to be adjourned and that the proceedings could last beyond the date mentioned in the decision of 30 October 1998. The court ordered, at the applicant’s request, his medical examination. It further requested the preparation of a report on the situation of the applicant’s family. The report was submitted on 2 February 1999.

On 4 February 1999 the court refused another request for release, based on the applicant’s state of health and the alleged necessity to take care of his father. It observed that the applicant was under constant psychiatric care and his father was being looked after by the applicant’s mother.

The hearing scheduled for 3 March 1999 was adjourned due to the sickness of one of the co-accused.

On 31 March 1999 the court held a hearing. It ordered the applicant’s release and his supervision by the police.

The court held further hearings on 5 and 27 May 1999.

On 31 August it refused the applicant’s petition to have his passport returned.

The court held hearings on 5 April and 9 August, as well as on 3, 6 and 9 November 2000. On 15 November 2000 it gave judgment. The court convicted the applicant of several counts of forgery and the purchase of a stolen car. It sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment suspended for three years and imposed a fine. The judgment concerned also 5 other accused persons.

One of the co-accused and the prosecutor lodged appeals against the judgment.

The first hearing scheduled by the appellate court did not take place because of a mistake made during the dispatch of summonses.

The hearing scheduled for 11 September 2001 was adjourned because of the absence of one of the accused’s counsel.

On 27 November 2001 the Lublin Court of Appeal ( sąd apelacyjny ) gave judgment. It amended certain parts of the first-instance court’s judgment.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention on remand.

2. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time.

THE LAW

1. The applicant alleged a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the relevant part of which provides:

“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 Government observed that within the Court’s competence ratione temporis the applicant was detained on remand from 1 May to 19 August 1993 and from 18 January 1998 to 31 March 1999. The period when he served the sentence imposed by the Belarussian court fell outside the scope of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

The Government noted that the applicant’s detention had been under constant judicial supervision. They submitted that each decision concerning that detention contained reasons therefor , which were sufficient and relevant. The Government made reference to the severity of the punishment the applicant had faced and the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence. They pointed out that there had existed a risk of absconding, which had been shown by the applicant’s conduct at the initial stage of the proceedings.

The applicant did not agree.

The Court considers, in the light of the parties’ submissions, that the complaint raises serious issues of fact and law under the Convention, the determination of which requires an examination of the merits. The Court concludes therefore that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. No other ground for declaring it inadmissible has been established.

2. The applicant’s second complaint relates to the length of the proceedings, which began on 21 April 1993 and ended on 27 November 2001. They therefore lasted 8 years, 7 months and 6 days , out of which a period of 8 years, 6 months and 27 days falls within the Court’s jurisdiction ratione temporis , Poland having recognised the right of individual petition as from 1 May 1993.

According to the applicant, the length of the proceedings was in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. The Government rejected the allegation.

The Court considers, in the light of the criteria established in its case-law on the question of “reasonable time” (the complexity of the case, the applicant’s conduct and that of the competent authorities), and having regard to all the information in its possession, that an examination of the merits of this complaint is required.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Declares the application admissible, without prejudging the merits of the case.

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President