Information Note on the Court’s case-law 49

January 2003

Jasiński v. Poland (dec.) - 30865/96

Decision 21.1.2003 [Section IV]

Article 5

Article 5-3

Judge or other officer exercising judicial power

Detention on order of prosecutor: admissible

The applicant was arrested by police on suspicion of burglary in January 1994. Two days later he was brought before a district prosecutor, charged with six counts of burgl ary and detained on remand. The prosecutor considered that there was a reasonable suspicion, given that the applicant had been arrested in flagrante delicto ; he also relied on the seriousness of the events in question. The applicant’s detention was continu ously extended up to the conclusion of his trial in April 1995 (over fifteen months). The first two extensions (up until 8 April 1994) were ordered by the district prosecutor on the grounds that it was necessary to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedi ngs, the likelihood of the applicant having committed other similar offences and the risk that he might hinder the gathering of evidence. Further extensions were granted in March and May 1994 by the District Court in view of the reasonable suspicion agains t the applicant, the need for further forensic reports and the processing of fresh evidence to support further charges. In August 1994, a district judge, Z.R., extended the applicant’s detention, considering that the charge had a “sufficient degree of veri similitude” and in view of the need to obtain evidence from psychiatrists of the applicant’s criminal responsibility. Shortly afterwards, the applicant was indicted on 29 charges of burglary. The applicant again sought his release, but his application was rejected by Z.R. and an appeal was unsuccessful. The trial was due to commence on 7 December 1994, with Z.R. presiding, but the applicant objected, arguing that due to his involvement in the proceedings, the judge lacked impartiality. His objection was dis missed by a panel of three judges. Z.R. again rejected a further application for release, a decision that was upheld on appeal. The applicant made two further, unsuccessful applications for release before his trial began in March 1995. He also requested ac cess to the prosecution file. Z.R. ruled that he could consult the file on the day of the first hearing. On that day, he was allowed ten minutes to look at a file of a thousand pages. At the end of the trial, he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment an d a fine. Appeals lodged by the applicant and his lawyer were dismissed by the Regional Court in October 1995.

Admissible under Article 5 § 3 (ordering of detention by a prosecutor) and Article 6 § 1 (impartial tribunal).

Inadmissible under Article 5 § 3 a s to the length of pre-trial detention: The authorities first of all relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offence with which he had been charged and its serious nature. As the investigation proceeded, the applicant’s dete ntion was justified by the need to gather new evidence relating to the new charges laid against him. Later, at the trial stage, the District Court and Regional Court were of the view that the applicant’s continued detention was justified under national law given the serious nature of the charges and the fact he had relapsed into crime. The proceedings had been conducted with due diligence, having regard to the nature of the case and the volume of the evidence: manifestly ill-founded.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes