Communicated on 27 October 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 1629/11 Zbigniew Józef LORBIECKI against Poland lodged on 14 December 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Zbigniew J ó zef Lorbiecki , is a Polish national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Kościerzyna .

The circumstances of the case

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

On 1 June 2006 the applicant was charged with uttering threats.

On 30 August 2006 the Ko Å› cierzyn a District Court discontinued the proceedings against the applicant. The court found it established that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged. However, he could not be held criminally responsible as he had been suffering from a mental disorder.

On 23 October 2006 the Gdansk Regional Court upheld this decision. The applicant was detained in a psychiatric hospital shortly afterwards. His detention was subsequently reviewed on a number of occasions.

In particular, on 10 March 2009 the Ko ś cierzyn a District Court referring to an experts ’ opinion, confirmed that the applicant ’ s condition had not changed and it was necessary to keep him in the hospital.

On 21 September 2009 and 30 March 2010 the Ko ś cierzyn a District Court again confirmed that the applicant ’ s condition had not changed and it was necessary to keep him in the hospital.

The applicant lodged an interlocutory appeal against the latter decision.

On 12 July 2010 the Gdansk Regional Court held a hearing. Despite his request, the applicant was not brought for the hearing. The court considered that the applicant ’ s lawyer ’ s presence was enough. On the same date the court gave a decision and refused to release the applicant from the hospital. The court considered that in view of the experts ’ opinion of 12 February 2010, the applicant ’ s condition had partially improved. However, it was still necessary to continue his internment.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains invoking several provisions of the Convention (Articles 3, 5, 6 , 13, 14 and 17) that his motions for release from the hospital were unsuccessful and that the proceedings were lengthy.

QUESTION TO THE PARTIES

Did the length of the proceedings in the present case, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of his detention in the psychiatric hospital, comply with the “speed” requirement of Article 5 § 4 of the Convention?