Published on 29 March 2021

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 30197/20 Jacek FIEĆKO against Poland lodged on 3 July 2020 communicated on 9 March 2021

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Jacek Fiećko , is a Polish national, who was born in 1977 and is detained at 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.

On 2 September 2016 the Gdańsk-Południe District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) ordered the applicant ’ s detention on remand on suspicion of kidnapping and illegal possession of a firearm. The applicant failed to provide the Court with a copy of this decision.

In the course of the investigation the applicant ’ s detention was extended several times by the Gdańsk Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) (on 28 November 2016, 27 February, 15 May, 23 August and 15 November 2017) and the Gdańsk Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) (on 14 February, 9 May, 10 August and 7 November 2018 and 7 February 2019). The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against most of the decisions extending his pre-trial detention.

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 violent offences in cooperation with other unknown persons, which in the courts ’ view increased the risk of obstructing the proceedings. The courts also emphasised that during the investigation there had been several attempts to threaten family members of one of the co-defendants, in order to intimidate him and convince him to withdraw his testimonies. On one occasion such threats were explicitly expressed by other 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.

The bill of indictment against the applicant and 13 other co-defendants was lodged with the Olsztyn Regional Court on 7 May 2019. In the course of the proceedings the applicant was charged with a number of other crimes, including participation in an armed, organised criminal group, robbery and impersonating a public official.

At that time the case file consisted of 112 volumes. 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.

The applicant ’ s detention was further extended by the Białystok Court of Appeal on 10 May 2019 (he unsuccessfully appealed against that decision) and by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal on 6 November 2019.

On 23 March 2020 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal extended the 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 against the extension.

On 18 March 2020 the applicant requested that his detention be lifted. On 8 April 2020 the Gdańsk Regional Court dismissed his request.

In their decisions given after the indictment, the courts relied on the fact that the applicant allegedly participated 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 proceedings are still pending before the first instance court at an early stage.

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?