Communicated on 27 October 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 72193/10 Miros ł aw WYŻGA against Poland lodged on 22 November 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Miros ł aw Wyżga , is a Polish national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Krak ó w.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On an unknown date the applicant was charged with uttering threats.

The applicant was kept in pre-trial detention since 31 August 2008.

On 9 March 2009 the Kraków District Court gave a decision and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant. The court 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 applicant ’ s detention on remand was prolonged on a later unknown date.

On 24 September 2009 the applicant was transferred from the detention centre to the Babinski Psychiatric Hospital in Kraków .

On 4 March 2010 the Kraków District Court referring to an expert ’ s opinion of 18 January 2010 confirmed that the applicant ’ s condition had not changed and it was necessary to keep him in the hospital. The applicant appealed. On 28 May 2010 the Kraków Regional Court upheld the first instance ’ s decision.

Meanwhile, another set of criminal proceedings against the applicant (charges of computer hacking) was discontinued by the Kraków District Court on 27 May 2010. The court held that the applicant could not be held criminally responsible. It further considered, referring to a psychiatric opinion of 13 April 2010, given by an expert psychiatrist D.W. that the applicant could be treated outside a psychiatric hospital

On 22 October 2010 the Kraków District Court again confirmed that the applicant ’ s condition had not changed. The court ’ s decision read the same as the previous decision. During the proceedings, the court examined an expert ’ s opinion of 16 July 2010 signed by a psychiatrist D.W.

The applicant ’ s lawyer appealed against this decision, claiming that D.W ’ s opinions were contradictory and that it was not reliably shown that the applicant ’ s continued detention was necessary.

On 10 December 2010 the Kraków Regional Court upheld the first instance ’ s decision.

On 21 April 2011 the Kraków District Court again confirmed that the applicant ’ s detention in a psychiatric hospital should be continued. The decision read exactly the same as the two previous decisions.

Following the applicant ’ s appeal, it was upheld by the Kraków Regional Court on 11 July 2011.

On 27 January 2012 the Kraków District Court confirmed that the applicant ’ s detention in a psychiatric hospital should be continued. The court referred to the applicant ’ s attempted escape of 11 January 2012.

The applicant ’ s appeal was dismissed by the Kraków Regional Court on 29 February 2012.

On 23 May 2012 expert psychiatrists confirmed that while the applicant ’ s condition had improved he should continue treatment in the hospital.

On 11 June 2012 the Kraków District Court confirmed that the applicant ’ s detention in a psychiatric hospital should be continued. The court again referred to the applicant ’ s attempted escape of 11 January 2012.

On 30 July 2012 the Kraków Regional Court upheld the first-instance decision.

On 3 December 2012 the Kraków District Court gave a decision and held that the applicant ’ s detention in a psychiatric hospital should be continued. That decision read the same as the previous two decisions.

The applicant ’ s appeal was dismissed by the Kraków Regional Court on 25 January 2013.

According to the information available to the Court the applicant is still detained in a psychiatric hospital.

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 provided for in this Chapter which involves confinement in a closed medical institution only if necessary to prevent the repeated commission of a prohibited act by a perpetrator suffering from mental disease, mental impairment or addiction to alcohol or other narcotic drugs. Before imposing such a measure the court shall hear evidence from psychiatrists and a psychologist.”

Article 94

“ § 1. If the perpetrator has committed a prohibited act of significant harm to the community in a condition excluding his criminal responsibility as specifie d in Article 31 1 and there is a high probability that he will commit such an act again, a court shall commit him to a suitable psychiatric institution.

§ 2. The duration of the stay in the institution shall not be fixed in advance; the court shall order the perpetrator ’ s release from the institution if his or her stay is no longer deemed necessary.

§ 3 The court may order the reconfinement of a perpetrator specified in § 1 in a suitable psychiatric institution if this is advisable in the light of the circumstances specified in § 1 or in Article 93; the order may not be issued later than five years after the date of release from the institution.”

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains, invoking Article 6 of the Convention, that the proceedings concerning his placement in a psychiatric hospital were unfair and that his continued detention in the psychiatric hospital is unlawful.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

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 justified under Article 5 § 1 (e) of the Convention?