Communicated on 5 January 2016

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 38388/11 Andrzej PACEWICZ against Poland lodged on 6 June 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Andrzej Pacewicz , is a Polish national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Choroszcz . He is represented before the Court by Ms Z. Daniszewska-Dek , a lawyer practising in Białystok .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant was charged with domestic violence in two sets of criminal proceedings (first set relating to offences committed between 1991 and 2008 and the second set concerning offences committed in 2008 and 2009). Between 2 and 30 July 2009 he underwent a psychiatric assessment in the Choroszcz a Hospital. On 25 August 2009 expert psychiatrists and a psychologist gave two opinions (related to two sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant) and considered that the applicant had a personality disorder, suffered from a delusional disorder and abused alcohol. They recommended that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital.

On 30 September 2009 the Bialystok Regional Court remanded the applicant in custody. The applicant ’ s detention was extended on 6 November 2009, 1 February 2010, 29 March 2010 and 1 June 2010. The court referred in particular to the high risk that if released the applicant might commit yet another offence. The court also considered that the applicant should be detained on remand in a secured psychiatric facility. The applicant appealed unsuccessfully against all those decisions.

The applicant was placed in Choroszcz a Psychiatric Hospital on 9 October 2009.

On 16 December 2009 the Bialystok District Court gave a judgment and discontinued the first set of criminal proceedings against the applicant. The court, referring to the experts ’ opinion, established that the applicant could not have been held criminally responsible as he had been suffering from a delusional disorder. It ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital. The Bia ł ystok Regional Court upheld this judgment on 20 April 2010.

On 29 March 2010 the Bia Å‚ ystok District Court discontinued the second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant and ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital. This decision was upheld in essence by the Bia Å‚ ystok Regional Court on 20 May 2010.

The applicant began his psychiatric internment on 2 August 2010 in the Choroszcz a Psychiatric Hospital. Upon his admission he was not examined by a doctor.

On 20 December 2010 expert psychiatrists submitted two identical opinions to the court (in both sets of criminal proceedings against the applicant). They stressed that the applicant ’ s state of health had significantly improved. He was calmer, respected the Rules of the Hospital (“ Regulamin szpitala ”) and accepted the need to continue treatment. However, the improvement was not permanent and there was still a risk that the applicant might commit yet another offence. Consequently, it was necessary to keep him in the hospital. On 29 December 2010 the Bia ł ystok District Court extended the applicant ’ s psychiatric internment. The court held, referring to the experts ’ opinions, that the applicant should continue treatment in a psychiatric hospital.

On 3 January 2010 t he applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal. He submitted that in view of an improvement of his condition there was no risk that he might commit yet another offence. On 17 February 2011 the Bialystok Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision referring to the reasons given by the District Court. The Regional Court did not need to supplement the evidence and had not obtained any fresh medical evidence .

On 24 May 2011 expert psychiatrists confirmed that despite an improvement of his condition, the applicant should continue treatment in the hospital as he was still uncritical as regards the acts he had committed and his illness.

On 28 June 2011 the Biał ystok District Court again extended the applicant ’ s detention in a psychiatric hospital. This decision was upheld on appeal by the Biał ystok Regional Court on 8 September 2011.

On 7 November 2011 the Biał ystok District Court refused to discharge the applicant from the hospital. The court examined an expert ’ s opinion of 10 October 2011 who confirmed that the applicant should continue treatment in a psychiatric hospital. The court noted the applicant ’ s statements that once released he had intended to stop pharmacological treatment.

The applicant was released from psy chiatric internment on 12 April 2012.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

Conditions for the detention of persons of unsound mind, who are not criminally responsible on medical grounds, are laid down in the Polish Criminal Code of 1997:

Article 93

“The court may impose a preventive measure as provided for in this chapter, which involves committal to a secure medical institution only if necessary in order to prevent the repeated commission of a prohibited act by an offender suffering from mental illness ... mental impairment, or addiction to alcohol or other narcotic drugs. Before imposing such a measure, the court shall hear ev idence from psychiatrists and a psychologist ...”

Article 94

“1. If an offender has committed a prohibited act in a state of insanity as specified in Article 31 § 1, causing significant harm to the community, and there is a high probability that he will commit such an act again, the court shall commit him to a suitable psychiatric institution.

2. The duration of the stay at the institution shall not be fixed in advance; the court shall release the offender from the institution if his stay there is no longer deemed necessary.

3. The court may reorder the committal of an offe nder (as specified in paragraph 1) to a suitable psychiatric institution if it is advisable in the light of the circumstances specified in paragraph 1 or Article 93; such an order may not be issued more than five years after release from the institution.”

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 of the Convention about unlawfulness of his detention.

2. He further complains, without invoking any provisions of the Convention about delays in the proceedings by which he sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, was he reliably shown to be “of unsound mind” and was his deprivation of liberty after 2 August 2010 justified under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention?

2. Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in a psychiatric hospital, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention (cf. Witek v. Poland , no. 13453/07 , § 59, 21 December 2010 )?