Communicated on 26 May 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no . 13571/10 Aleksander KOBIZ against Poland lodged on 23 February 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Aleksander Kobiz , is a Russian national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Frombork . He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Kruża , a lawyer practising in Gdańsk .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

The applicant is a businessman of Russian nationality running two companies in Russia in the Kaliningrad Oblast. He was charged with tax fraud in Poland.

On 20 July 2005 the Gdansk District Court decided to detain him on remand in absentia .

On 2 September 2005 an arrest warrant was issued in relation to the applicant.

On 21 December 2005 the applicant was arrested.

On 23 December 2005 he was released from detention.

On the same day the Gdansk Regional Prosecutor imposed on the applicant other preventive measures, namely police supervision and prohibition on leaving Poland combined with the withholding of his passport.

On 4 January 2006 the applicant ’ s lawyer requested the prosecutor to lift the measure applied to his client.

On 23 January 2006 the Gdansk Regional Prosecutor refused to grant this request. He found that there was a real risk that the applicant might go into hiding and that, additionally, the measure was justified by a severe penalty that might be imposed on him.

After that the applicant ’ s lawyer requested several times that the measure applied to the applicant be lifted. He also appealed against each decision extending the application of the measure. Each time the prosecutors or the courts found that the reasons for which the applicant had been prevented from leaving Poland “have not ceased to exist” and that there was a risk that the applicant might leave Poland and in this way obstruct the proceedings.

On 2 September 2009 the applicant was arrested by the police. It was established that he did not have the required permission for his stay on the territory of Poland.

On 21 November 2008, following the applicant ’ s lawyer ’ s request, the Gdansk District Court lifted the measure in so far as it concerned the seizure of the applicant ’ s passport but refused to lift the prohibition of leaving Poland. The court found that the applicant had tried to leave for Russia.

The applicant ’ s lawyer appealed.

On 29 January 2009 the Gdansk District Court upheld the challenged decision.

On 24 June 2010 at the hearing the applicant ’ s lawyer again requested the Gdansk District Court to lift the measure applied to the applicant. The court granted the request under the condition that the applicant would pay bail of PLN 10,000 finding that “the applicant had appeared at the hearings and actively participated in the proceedings”.

The applicant ’ s lawyer requested the court to reduce the amount of bail and, on 29 July 2010 the Gdansk District Court granted the request and reduced the bail to PLN 5,000.

On 5 August 2010 the applicant paid the bail and the preventive measure was lifted.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The 1997 Code of Criminal Procedure defines prohibition on leaving the country ( zakaz opuszczania kraju ) as one of the “preventive measures” ( ś rodki zapobiegawcze ). Those measures are, in addition to prohibition on leaving the country, pre-trial detention ( tymczasowe aresztowanie ), bail ( poręczenie majątkowe ) , police supervision ( dozór policji ), guarantee by a responsible person ( poręczenie osoby godnej zaufania ) , gu arantee by a social entity ( poręczenie społeczne ) , and temporary ban on engaging in a given activity ( zawieszenie oskarżonego w określonej działalności ).

Paragraph 1 of Article 277 of the Code provides, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“A prohibition on leaving the country may be imposed if there is a reasonable risk that an accused will abscond or go into hiding; this prohibition may be combined with withholding the accused ’ s passport or other travel document or with a prohibition on issuing such a document ...”

COMPLAINT

Relying on Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention, the applicant complains that the preventive measures imposed on him for such an unreasonably long time had amounted to a violation of his right to freedom of movement.

QUESTION to the parties

Was the prohibition on the applicant leaving Poland, imposed on 23 December 2005, compatible with Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention? In particular, was that restriction proportionate to any legitimate aim pursued? ( see mutatis mutandis, Baumann v. France , 33592/96, 22 May 2001 and Miażdżyk v. Poland , no. 23592/07 , 24 January 2012 ).