Communicated on 2 November 2015

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 10337/13 Artur KOWALCZYK against Poland lodged on 21 January 2013

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Artur Kowalczyk , is a Polish national, who was born in 1971 and is detained in Łódź .

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

A. The criminal proceedings

Since August 2009 the prosecution service was investigating a criminal gang trading in drugs.

On 28 September 2010 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 30 September 2010 the Łódź District Court decided to detain him on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had been trading in drugs together with accomplices (IV Kp 740/10). His detention on remand was further extended on 21 December 2010 and 12 April 2011.

On 28 June 2011 the Łódź Regional Court extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention.

On 14 September 2011 the bill of indictment against the applicant and 59 other persons was lodged with the Łódź Regional Court ( Sygn akt XVIII K 169/11).

Afterwards, the applicant ’ s detention was extended by the Łódź Regional Court on 18 January 2012 and by Łódź Court of Appeal on 29 February, 14 August and 19 December 2012.

Between 19 April and 19 October 2013 the applicant served a prison sentence ordered in another set of criminal proceedings against him (XVIII K 101/13).

The Lodz Court of Appeal extended the applicant detention on 19 June and 18 December 2013 and 25 March, 25 June and 22 October 2014. The court relied on a high probability that the accused had committed the offences and the complexity of the trial. The court also considered that the accused had been undertaking actions aiming at obstructing the proper course of the proceedings; however, without specifying what illegal actions had taken place or whether the applicant had been implicated in them. The Court of Appeal also considered as high a probability of a severe sentence being imposed.

When extending the applicant ’ s detention on the last above-mentioned date the court dismissed his application to be released on bail.

On 28 January and 25 March 2015 the Lodz Court of Appeal further extended his detention.

The applicant ’ s appeals against the decisions extending his detention and numerous requests for release were dismissed.

On 30 March 2015 the Łódź Regional Court gave a judgment in the case concerning thirty co-accused . The applicant was convicted of multiple offences and sentenced to thirteen years ’ imprisonment. The applicant requested a written copy of the judgment be served on him with the intention to appeal against it.

B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act

On 19 October in 2012 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Łódź Court of Appeal under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu przygotowawczym prowadzonym lub nadzorowanym przez prokuratora i postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki – “the 2004 Act”). He sought a finding that the length of the criminal proceedings against him had been excessive and 20,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation. He further asked to be exempted from the court fee for lodging the complaint.

On 14 November 2012 the Łódź Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant ’ s request to be exempted from the court fee of PLN 100 (II AS 49/12). The court considered that the applicant had had about PLN 300 on his account thus it had been possible for him to pay the fee. The applicant ’ s appeal against this decision was rejected as not provided by the law. His complaint under the 2004 Act was subsequently rejected.

C . Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre ‑ trial detention ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other “preventive measures” ( Å›rodki zapobiegawcze ) are stated 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.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complains under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of his detention on remand and of the criminal proceedings in his case. The applicant also complains that because of lack of financial means he was prevented from complaining about the length of the proceedings under the 2004 Act. The applicant submits that the domestic court wrongly established that at the material time he had had enough money to pay PLN 100.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Did the length of the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention exceed a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?

2. Having regard to the Court ’ s pilot judgment in the case of Rutkowski and Others v. Poland and its finding that excessive length of judicial proceedings in Poland has disclosed a systemic problem, was the length of the criminal proceedings in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?

The parties are asked to make their comments in the light of that judgment (see, in particular, Rutkowski and Others v. Poland , nos. 72287/10, 13927/11 and 46187/11, §§ 203-210, 7 July 2015).

3. Having regard to the outcome of the proceedings in which the applicant requested compensation for the excessive length of the proceedings in his case and the Court ’ s finding in Rutkowski and Others :

a) that a complaint under the 2004 Act has lacked effectiveness in its compensatory aspect; and

b) that the insufficiency of compensation for non-pecuniary damage arising from excessive length of judicial proceedings awarded by the domestic courts has disclosed a systemic problem,

has there been a breach of Article 13 of the Convention in the present case?

The parties are asked to make their comments in the light of the pilot judgment (see, in particular, Rutkowski and Others , §§ 203-206 and 211 ‑ 22).

4. Given the amount of court fees required from the applicant to lodge a complaint under the 2004 Act, was his right of “access to a court”, as secured by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention , respected?

5. In respect of the applicant ’ s complaint about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings in his case and in the light of his complaints about lack of access to a court and breach of Article 13 of the Convention (see questions 3 and 4 above), should the applicant be considered as having exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?