Communicated on 12 October 2017

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 62697/16 Monika KARPIUK against Poland lodged on 19 October 2016

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Ms Monika Karpiuk , is a Polish national who was born in 1980 and lives in Warsaw. She is represented before the Court by Mr J. Golonka , a lawyer practising in Warsaw.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

In 2003 the applicant was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder. In 2004 she started psychiatric treatment.

In 2007 she was charged with participating in an organised criminal group dealing in liquid fuels. The criminal proceedings against the members of the group have been pending before the Lublin Regional Court since 2007.

In a report of 5 June 2015 a psychiatrist stated that the applicant could not participate in the proceedings because of suicidal tendencies caused by the impact of negative memories.

On 4 April 2016 the applicant informed the Lublin Regional Court that she would not be present at a hearing due on 6 April 2016 as she had been admitted to the Warsaw Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology. She also asked the court to adjourn the hearing and submitted a medical certificate.

On 6 April 2016 the Lublin Regional Court decided to detain her and a co-accused, J.G., on remand for three months, until 6 June 2016. The court referred to the existence of a reasonable fear that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings. It noted that the applicant and J.G. had already on several occasions presented medical certificates with requests to adjourn the case. The court held that, according to information from the institute, it had already been clear on 2 February 2016 that the applicant would be staying there . With reference to the opinion of 5 June 2015, the court appointed a psychiatrist, M.M., who stated that the applicant could participate in the proceedings. The court found that the applicant ’ s problems would require constant medical treatment, including hospitalisation, which, in conjunction with requests to adjourn the case, would result in obstructing the proceedings. The court held further that the applicant had a lawyer to represent her in court. It appears that the applicant was placed in detention on that date.

On 8 April 2016 the applicant ’ s lawyer, L.S., appealed.

On 12 April 2016 the Lublin Regional Court refused to stay the enforcement of the decision ordering the applicant ’ s detention on remand.

On 20 April 2016 the Lublin Court of Appeal upheld the detention decision, agreeing with the Regional Court ’ s view that the measure had been justified by the possibility that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings. As regards the applicant ’ s medical condition, the court held that she could be treated in the detention facility.

On the same date the applicant ’ s lawyer, J.G., applied to the Lublin Court of Appeal asking for the detention order to be lifted . On 27 April 2016 the Lublin Court of Appeal discontinued the proceedings as the final decision on the applicant ’ s detention on remand had been issued on 20 April 2016.

At a hearing on 21 April 2016 the applicant ’ s lawyer, L.S., applied for the applicant ’ s release, submitting a declaration that she consented to the hearings being held in her absence. He also submitted her medical certificates.

On the same date the Lublin Regional Court lifted the detention order. The court held that the applicant had consented to the hearing being held in her absence and that detention on remand was no longer necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings . Nevertheless, the court noted that if the applicant acted as before then detention on remand would be imposed again.

B. Relevant domestic law

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand, the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so ‑ called “preventive measures” ( Å›rodki zapobiegawcze ) are set out 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).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention of the unlawfulness and arbitrariness of her detention on remand. The applicant also complains under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention that she was made to waive her right to be present at the trial in order to have the order for her detention lifted.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention justified and nece ssary in terms of Article 5 § 1 (c) of the Convention (see Witold Litwa v. Poland , no. 26629/95, § 78, ECHR 2000 ‑ III; Hilda Hafsteinsdóttir v. Iceland , no. 40905 /98, § 51, 8 June 2004; and Enhorn v. Sweden , no. 56529/00, § 44, ECHR 2005 ‑ I)? In particular, were any less severe measures considered and found to be insufficient to secure the proper course of the proceedings?

2. Assuming that the applicant waived her right to self-representation and to be present at the hearing, was that waiver not only voluntary, but did it also constitute a “knowing and intelligent relinquishment of a right” (see Pishchalnikov v. Russia , no. 7025/04 , § 77, 24 September 2009 )?