Published on 29 March 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 10635/20 Maciej BABIŃSKI against Poland lodged on 3 July 2020 communicated on 9 March 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Maciej Babiński , is a Polish national who was born in 1981 and is detained in Gdańsk Detention Centre. He is represented before the Court by Ms. J. Wojtyła , a lawyer practising in Gdańsk .

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

The applicant was arrested on 1 December 2015 and charged with kidnapping for ransom and illegal possession of a firearm.

On 3 December 2015 the Gdańsk – Południe District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) ordered his detention on remand. The court reasoned that it was highly probable that the applicant had taken part in the kidnapping but there had been insufficient evidence to support the charge of illegal possession of firearms. Nonetheless, the severe punishment that the applicant faced for the kidnapping charge and the fact that he had allegedly acted in a violent manner and in cooperation with other persons, resulted in the court concluding that there had been a risk of interference with the proper conduct of the proceedings.

In the course of the investigation the applicant ’ s detention was extended several times by the Gdańsk Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) (on 17 February, 24 May, 19 August and 7 November 2016) and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) (on 16 November 2016, 15 February, 17 May, 16 August and 15 November 2017, 14 February, 9 May, 10 August, 7 November 2018 and 7 February 2019).

The applicant appealed against some of the decisions extending his pre ‑ trial detention. On 15 March 2016 the GdaÅ„sk Court of Appeal, when examining the applicant ’ s appeal against the extension ordered on 17 February 2016, slightly changed the legal basis for the detention but dismissed the remainder of the applicant ’ s appeal and upheld the duration of the extension of pre-trial detention. His other appeals were dismissed by the same court on 21 June and 20 September 2016, 14 March, 6 September and 20 December 2017 and 13 March and 20 June 2018.

The domestic courts based their decisions on a significant probability that the applicant had committed the offences in question, on the fact that he faced a severe sentence and because he had been accused of committing offences in cooperation with other unknown persons, which increased the risk of obstructing the proceedings. The courts also took into account the applicant ’ s previous criminal record and emphasised that on 3 August 2016 he had threatened family members of a co-defendant who had cooperated with the law enforcement institutions. Apparently, there had also been an attempt to bribe the same co-defendant. At a later stage of the investigation the courts additionally pointed to the complexity of the case and stressed that the investigation had been carried out without undue delays.

During the proceedings the applicant was charged with a number of other crimes, including attempted murder resulting in grievous bodily harm, participation in an organised armed criminal group, robbery and impersonating a public official.

The bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Olsztyn Regional Court on 7 May 2019. The applicant ’ s detention was further extended by the Białystok Court of Appeal on 10 May 2019 (he appealed unsuccessfully against this decision) and by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 6 November 2019.

On 23 March 2020 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the applicant ’ s detention until 31 July 2020. The applicant failed to inform the Court whether his detention was extended beyond that date. On 30 April 2020 the same court dismissed the applicant ’ s appeal.

In their decisions given after the indictment the courts relied on the fact that the applicant had allegedly acted in an organised criminal group, faced a severe sentence and was likely to obstruct the proceedings. The courts also stressed the complicated nature of the case.

The applicant was presented with charges on 1 December 2015. The investigation included 63 charges against different persons. The prosecutor heard 299 witnesses and ordered 144 expert opinions. The case files consisted of 110 volumes and 6 dossiers of medical documentation.

On 7 May 2019 the bill of indictment against 14 co-defendants, including the applicant, was lodged with the Olsztyn Regional Court. The parties requested that during the trial 138 witnesses be heard.

On 12 June 2019, the case was transferred to the Gdańsk Regional Court for examination.

Up to 27 May 2020 the court scheduled thirteen hearings. Six of them were cancelled or adjourned (four due to reasons related to the COVID-19 sanitary crisis, one on the applicant ’ s lawyer ’ s request and one due to the absence of co-defendants ’ lawyers). During the hearings the court had undertaken mostly formal decisions and other formal procedural steps (for example, informing the parties about documentation which was filed with the court). No witness was heard until 27 May 2020. At that time four other hearings were scheduled.

On 25 February 2020 the applicant filed a complaint under the 2004 Law on complaints about the breach of the right to have a case examined in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings without undue delay ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) – herein after “the 2004 Act”. He sought that the proceedings be declared lengthy and requested the grant of just satisfaction in the amount of PLN 20,000 (approximately EUR 5,000).

On 27 May 2020 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed his complaint. The court referred to the complex nature of the case, which had included multiple defendants and multiple charges. In the court ’ s view both the investigation and the trial had been conducted without undue delays.

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).

A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings – in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act – are presented in the Court ’ s decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 15212/03, §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V), Ratajczyk v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII), and in its judgments in the cases of Krasuski v. Poland (no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V) and, most recently, Rutkowski and Others v. Poland (nos. 72287/10 and 2 others, § 75-107, 7 July 2015).

COMPLAINTS

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

He further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES:

1. 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?

2. Has the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case been in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?