Communicated on 6 February 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 9951/10 Miroslaw PIECHOWICZ against Poland lodged on 25 January 2010

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Mirosław Piechowicz , is a Polish national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Lublin .

T he circumstances of the case

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

On 21 June 2006 the applicant was arrested and subsequently detained under the suspicion of drug trafficking as part of an organised criminal group.

On the same day the applicant ' s car, an Audi A6 produced in 2004, was seized and placed in a police car park. It appears that there was no seizure order given at this stage.

On 28 August 2006 the police requested an expert to determine whether the identification number and engine number of the car in question were genuine. It is unclear whether the expert prepared the opinion and what its conclusion was.

On 9 March 2007 the Lublin Regional Prosecutor decided on preventive seizure of the car with a view to its possible confiscation as the fruit of an offence and with a view to securing a possible fine of up to 180,000 euros to be imposed on the applicant. It was established that the value of the car was about 32,500 euros and it was co-owned by the applicant and his common-law wife, A.W., who was also accused in the same set of proceedings. The car was entrusted to a certain N.S., indicated by the applicant ' s legal counsel.

The applicant appealed against the prosecutor ' s decision. He submitted, among other things, that the purchase of the car had been partly financed by a bank loan and that the bank was also a co-owner of the car in question.

On 2 May 2007 the Lublin District Court dismissed the applicant ' s appeal. It found that the applicant had borrowed money from the bank only in order to hide the fact that the money with which he bought the car in fact had been obtained from illegal sources.

Since then the car has been seized and the applicant claims that as he is detained, he could not pay the reimbursement instalments and the debt with the bank has exceeded the value of the seized car.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that in the circumstances of his case the principle of proportionality as regards the control of use of his property has not been respected.

The applicant also complains under the same Article that the seizure of his car had no legal basis between 21 June 2006 and 9 March 2007 , because no seizure order was given before the latter date.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. In respect of the seizure order made by the Regional Prosecutor on 9 March 2007, has the applicant been deprived of his possessions in the public interest, and in accordance with the conditions provided for by law, within the meaning of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? If so, was that interference – in the circumstances of the case and taking into consideration its duration - justified as a control of the use of property in accordanc e with the general interest (see, mutatis mutandis , Raimondo v. Italy , judgment of 22 February 1994 )?

2. What was the legal basis for seizure of the applicant ' s car between 21 June 2006 and 9 March 2007?