Published on 19 April 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 12113/19 Andrzej KUCEWICZ against Poland lodged on 11 February 2019 communicated on 1 April 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Andrzej Kucewicz , is a Polish national who was born in 1961 and is detained in Warsaw– Białołęka Detention Centre. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Gałązka , a lawyer practising in Warsaw.

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

On an unspecified date the applicant, a notary, was charged with participating in an organised criminal group and abuse of power as a public official by being involved in 50 counts of large-scale fraud. In the course of the proceedings the number of charges concerning fraud increased significantly. The applicant pleaded guilty to all charges except for being a member of an organised criminal group.

On 4 July 2017 the applicant was arrested. On 6 July 2017 the Warsaw ‑ Praga Północ District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ) detained him on remand for 2 months and decided that he could be released on bail in the amount of PLN 650 000 (approx. EUR 162 500). The court reasoned that there had not been sufficient evidence in support of the charge of participating in an organised criminal group, but that there was a significant probability that he had abused his power as a public official and been involved in committing large-scale fraud. In the court ’ s view it was unlikely that the applicant would interfere with the proper course of the proceedings, but the pre-trial detention was justified due to the severe punishment that the applicant faced.

On 27 July 2017 the Warsaw- Praga Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ), after examining appeals lodged both by the prosecutor and by the applicant ’ s lawyer, amended the above-mentioned decision, detained the applicant for 3 months and refused to grant bail. The court agreed that the evidence collected supported sufficiently only the charges of abuse of power, indicated that the applicant faced a severe sentence and held that there was a high risk of his obstructing the proceedings as the applicant ’ s employees had not been yet heard.

In the course of the investigation the applicant ’ s detention was extended several times by the Warsaw- Praga Regional Court (on 29 September and 28 December 2017) and by the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) (on 25 June, 21 August and 19 November 2018 and 18 February 2019). The applicant ’ s lawyer unsuccessfully appealed against most of the decisions extending the pre-trial detention.

The domestic courts based their decisions on a significant probability that the applicant had committed the offences in question and on the fact that he faced a severe sentence. As the applicant was charged with participating in an organised criminal group, the courts reasoned that the risk of obstructing the proper course of the proceedings was significant. Moreover, the courts referred to the complicated nature of the case; the case file comprised at least 270 volumes. On one occasion, namely on 19 November 2018, the Warsaw Court of Appeal stressed the need to gather new evidence to extend charges against the applicant.

The most recent decision provided to the Court by the applicant extends his detention until 23 May 2019 (the Warsaw Court of Appeal ’ s order of 18 February 2019, upheld by the same court on 1 April 2019). In his letter of 17 June 2019 the applicant ’ s lawyer claims that the applicant is still detained. There is no information whether the applicant has already been indicted.

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning detention on remand ( tymczasowe aresztowanie ), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other so-called “preventive measures” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the court ’ s judgments in the cases of G ołek v. Poland (no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006), Celejewski v. Poland (no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006) and Kauczor v. Poland (no. 45219/06, §§ 25-33, 3 February 2009).

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the unreasonable length of his detention on remand.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Has the length of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?