FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 66364/12 Krzysztof ŁĄKA against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20 May 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Nona Tsotsoria , President,

Paul Mahoney,

Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,

and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 October 2012 ,

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

1. The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Łąka , is a Polish national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Łódź .

2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

4. In August 2009 the prosecutor instituted criminal proceedings against the applicant.

5. On 7 March 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police.

On 8 March 2010 the Pabianice District Court decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been trading in drugs (amphetamine, ecstasy) and producing them together with accomplices (II Kp 111/10, 1 Ds 552/09).

6. The applicant ’ s detention on remand was extended on 2 June, 17 August, and 21 December 2010 by the Łódź Regional Court ( Ap V Ds. 19/10). In addition to a reasonable suspicion against the applicant the courts referred to the complexity of the investigation into an organised criminal gang and a risk of a severe sentence imposed on the applicant. The court underlined that the applicant had been charged with being a leader of an orga nised criminal gang thus the ris k of him attempting to obstruct the proceedings and contact other accused had been high.

7. In 2011 the applicant ’ s detention was prolonged on 2 March, 22 June and 23 September. The courts reiterated the grounds invoked previously. In addition the Łódź Court of Appeal in the decision of 22 June 2011 noted that the co ‑ accused attempted to illegally contact each other which justified a risk of them interfering with the course of proceedings if released.

8. On 14 September 2011 the applicant, and 60 co-accused, were indicted before the Łódź Regional Court ( Sygn akt XVIII K 169/11).

9. Afterwards, the applicant ’ s detention was extended by the Łódź Regional Court on 18 January 2012 and by Łódź Court of Appeal on 29 February, 14 August and 19 December 2012.

10. On 31 August 2011 the Szczecin District Court convicted the applicant in another set of criminal proceedings and sentenced him to three years and nine months ’ imprisonment. The applicant started serving this sentence on 19 May 2012.

11. The trial court scheduled the first hearing for 17 July 2012 but it was cancelled due to illness of one of the accused. Afterwards the trial court held many hearings; however, seventeen of them had to be rescheduled as the accused lodged requests for consultation of the case-file. The prosecution ’ s file amounted to 78 volumes and the court ’ s file to 25. Some hearings were rescheduled because of the applicant ’ s illness and others because the accused lodged various procedural motions (for instance applied to amend the minutes of the hearings ) .

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

12. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre ‑ trial detention ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other “preventive measures” ( Å›rodki zapobiegawcze ) are stated in the Court ’ s judgments in the cases of GoÅ‚ek v. Poland , no. 31330/02, §§ 27 ‑ 33, 25 April 2006, and Celejewski v. Poland , no. 17584/04, §§ 22 ‑ 23, 4 August 2006.

COMPLAINT

13. The applicant complain ed under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention and the length of the criminal proceedings in his case.

THE LAW

A. The alleged violation of Article 5 of the Convention

14. 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.”

15. The Government disputed this argument with reference to the facts of the case. They further submitted that given the severity of charges against the applicant the grounds given for the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention were “relevant” and “sufficient” to justify holding him in custody for the entire relevant period.

16. The applicant ’ s detention started on 7 March 2010 when he was arrested on suspicion of trading in drugs and producing them acting in an organised criminal gang. The applicant remains in detention on remand and his trial is pending before the Łódź Regional Court.

However, the Government submitted that since 19 May 2012 the applicant has been serving a prison sentence which had been imposed on him in another set of criminal proceedings. The applicant acknowledged that presently he has been simultaneously serving a sentence of imprisonment. The Court considers that this term, as being covered by Article 5 § 1 (a), must therefore be subtracted from the period of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention for the purposes of Article 5 § 3.

17. Thus, the period to be taken into consideration lasted from 7 March 2010 until 19 May 2012. It amounts to two years, two months and twelve days.

18. The Court 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, KudÅ‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq , ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41– 44, ECHR 2006-..., with further references).

19. Turning to the circumstances of the instant case the Court notes that in their detention decisions, the authorities, in addition to the reasonable suspicion against the applicant, relied principal ly on three grounds, namely (1) the serious nature of the offences with which he had been charged, (2) the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings and (3) the unusual complexity of the proceedings.

20. The applicant was charged with producing amphetamine and other drugs and trading in them committed as a leader of an organised criminal gang. In the Court ’ s view, the fact that the case concerned a member of such criminal gang should be taken into account in asse ssing compliance with Article 5 § 3 (see Bąk v. Poland , no. 7870/04, § 57, 16 January 2007).

21. The Court also accepts that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant of having committed serious offences warranted his initial detention. Also, the need to obtain a large volume of evidence and to determine the degree of the alleged responsibility of each of the defendants, who had acted in a criminal group and against whom numerous charges of serious offences had been laid, constituted valid grounds for the applicant ’ s initial detention.

22. Furthermore, according to the authorities, the likelihood of a severe sentence being imposed on the applicant created a presumption that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. However, the Court would reiterate that, while the severity of the sentence faced is a relevant element in the assessment of the risk of absconding or re-offending, the gravity of the charges cannot by itself justify long periods of pre-trial detention (see Michta v. Poland , no. 13425/02, § 49, 4 May 2006).

23. While all the above factors could justify even a relatively long period of detention, they did not give the domestic courts unlimi ted power to extend the measure (see Kopij v . Poland ( dec. ), no. 7676/06 , 1 July 2008).

24. Nevertheless, in the particular circumstances of the case involving an organised criminal gang and in view of its above findings as to the total length of the applicant ’ s detention, the Court considers that the grounds given for the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention were “relevant” and “sufficient” to justify holding him in custody for the entire relevant period.

25. It therefore remains to be ascertained whether the national authorities displayed “special diligence” in the conduct of the proceedings.

26. At the outset the Court observes that the proceedings were of unusual complexity. They involved over sixty co-accused who had been charged with various offences relating to trading in drugs and organised crime . This complexity proved to be challenging to the trial court which had to adjourn numerous hearings because of the illnesses of the accused or their various procedural motions. The Court finds that in the particular circumstances of the present case the domestic courts proceeded without undue delays. The Court therefore concludes that the national authorities displayed special diligence in the conduct of the proceedings. The length of the investigation and of the trial was justified by the exceptional complexity of the case.

27. 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 was in conformity with 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.

B. The alleged violation of Article 6 of the Convention

28. The applicant ’ s second complaint related to the length of the proceedings, which began in August 2009 and are still pending. 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.

29. However, u nder Article 35 § 1 of the Convention, the Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted.

30. The Court observes that the applicant failed to lodge a complaint u nder 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 ).

31. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously ,

Declares the application inadmissible.

FatoÅŸ Aracı Nona Tsotsoria              Deputy Registrar President