Communicated on 24 January 2014

FOURTH SECTION

Application no. 38104/11 Krzysztof SZAFRAŃSKI against Poland lodged on 1 August 2011

STATEMENT OF FACTS

The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Szafrański , is a Polish national, who was born in 1971 and lives in Wierzchowo .

A . The applicant ’ s pre-trial detention and the criminal proceedings against him

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

On 21 January 2007 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of illegal possession of weapons and participation in an organised criminal group .

On 23 January 2007 the Bytów District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded him in custody, relying on the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. The court also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might induce witnesses to give false testimony or attempt to abscond . The court stressed that extensive evidence had still to be obtained in the case. Furthermore, the court relied on the severity of the anticipated sentence in view of the grave nature of the offences in question.

During the investigation the courts continually imposed the pre-trial detention on the applicant.

On an unspecified date in late 2007 the applicant was indicted for numerous offences including the leading of an organised criminal group, unlawful possession of weapons while acting in an organised criminal group, participation in another criminal group, several counts of fraud and forgery of documents committed in an organised criminal group. He was also indicted for forgery of identity documents . The bill of indictment was brought against four defendants.

The first hearing was held by the S Å‚ upsk Regional Court ( SÄ…d Okr Ä™ g owy ) on 17 March 2008.

In the course of the judicial proceedings the applicant ’ s detention was continuously prolonged. In particular, on 29 December 2008 the S ł upsk Regional Court refused the applicant ’ s request for the preventive measure to be lifted or varied and extended his detention until 20 January 2009.

The applicant ’ s lawyer appealed against this decision arguing that other, more lenient preventive measures would be sufficient to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. On 21 January 2009 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed the appeal.

During the trial the S ł upsk Regional Court held seventeen hearings and gave judgment on 7 January 2009 (case no. II K 111 /07 ). The applicant was partly convicted as charged, in particular of the leading of an organised criminal group and of participation in another organised criminal group and of several counts of fraud and forgery of documents and sentenced to a cumulative sentence of seven years ’ imprisonment. The court acquitted the applicant of the charges of fraud committed in an organised criminal group.

The parties appealed against the first instance judgment. The applicant remained in detention pending appeal.

On 14 January 2009 the applicant was handed over to the German authorities in connection with criminal proceedings against him. He was transferred to the Polish authorities on 26 January 2011.

On 2 March 2011 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal heard the appeals (case no. II AKa 254/09 ). It partly quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. The applicant ’ s conviction of offences of fraud and forgery of documents was upheld and the cumulative sentence of one year and four months ’ imprisonment was imposed. The court deducted the period of the applicant ’ s detention from 21 January 2007 until 21 May 2008 from this sentence.

On 22 March 2011 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal gave a decision extending the applicant ’ s detention. The court relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed and the fact that the applicant was charged with offences committed in an organised criminal group which was to justify the risk that he might obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings.

In the relevant part of this decision the Court of Appeal stated that:

“It should be added that the period of the defendant ’ s detention on remand is not excessive, taking into account the nature and content of the charges against him, the severity of the anticipated penalty and the fact, that the defendant committed the offences with which he had been charged while leading an organised criminal group.”

The applicant ’ s lawyer appealed against this decision. He alleged, in particular, that the above-mentioned statement amounted to a violation of the principle of presumption of innocence.

On 19 April 2011 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal , sitting in a different panel of three judges, upheld the contested decision. The Court of Appeal found, in so far as relevant, as follows:

“It is true that, as argued by the defence , since [the applicant] has not yet been finally convicted of the offences of leading of , and participating in an organised criminal group, the statement included in the grounds of the impugned decision, namely that “(he) had committed the offences with which he had been charged while leading an organised criminal group”, is inappropriate. The defendant is right in stressing that under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. However, the use of too categorical a phrase in the reasoning of the decision of 22 March 2011 could not result in lifting the defendant ’ s detention on remand . As the reasons for the continued imposition of the preventive measure remain valid, there are no grounds for altering the contested decision of the Court of Appeal.”

The retrial started on 25 October 2011. Subsequently, the court held hearings on 25 October, 28 November and 2 December 2011 and on 4 and 25 January, 19 March, 19 April and 11 May 2012.

During the retrial the applicant ’ s detention was further prolonged. In the decision of 5 July 2011, the S ł upsk Regional Court relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, the severity of the anticipated penalty, and the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, justified by the fact that the applicant had been charged with offences committed in an organised criminal group.

The applicant ’ s detention was subsequently prolonged by the decision of the S ł upsk Regional Court of 22 August 2011. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 21 September 2011 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the contested decision.

On 25 October 2011 the S ł upsk Regional Court refused the applicant ’ s application for release, finding that he had failed to demonstrate that any new circumstances arose in his case.

On 23 November 2011 the applicant started serving a prison sentence imposed on him in other criminal proceedings.

On 2 December 2011 the S ł upsk Regional Court lifted the applicant ’ s detention.

On 17 May 2012 the S ł upsk Regional Court gave judgment (case no. II K 37/11 ). It acquitted the applicant of the charge of the leading of an organised criminal group but convicted him of illegal possession of weapons and fraud. As regards the charge of the participation in an organised criminal group, the court discontinued the proceedings, finding that the offence had become time-barred. The court imposed a cumulative sentence of three years and six months ’ imprisonment on the applicant. The period of the applicant ’ s detention was deducted from the sentence.

The parties appealed against this judgment. On 31 May 2013 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment in essence (case no. II AKa 49/13 ).

B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act (case no. II KSP 10/11 )

On 18 July 2011 the applicant lodged a complaint with the Supreme Court ( S ą d Najwy ż szy ) 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 ”). The complaint referred to the relevant case number of the proceedings before the Gdańsk Court Appeal. The applicant sought a finding that the length of the appellate proceedings had been excessive and 1 0,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) in compensation. He submitted that the appellate proceedings had lasted from 30 December 2009 until 2 March 2011 and that the excessive length of the proceedings was attributable to the domestic authorities, in particular as he had been, in his opinion erroneously, handed over to the German authorities in the period from 14 January 2009 until 26 January 2011 .

On 8 September 2011 the Supreme Court rejected the applicant ’ s complaint. The Supreme Court found that the applicant had failed to indicate circumstances that would justify his request , as required by section 6 of the 2004 Act. It considered that to satisfy this requirement it did not suffice to rely on the fact that the applicant was transferred for a given period to Germany. The court stressed that the applicant should have indicated a concrete inactivity or deficient activity on the part of the domestic authorities resulting in the allegedly excessive length of proceedings.

C. Relevant domestic law and practice

1. Length of pre-trial detention

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre ‑ trial detention ( tymczasowe aresztowanie ), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called “preventive measures” ( Å›rodki zapobiegawcze ) are stated in the Court ’ s judgments in the cases of KudÅ‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; BagiÅ„ski v. Poland , no. 37444/97, §§ 42– 46, 11 October 2005; and Celejewski v. Poland , no. 17584/04, §§ 22– 23, 4 May 2006.

2. Length of proceedings

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for the excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the 2004 Act, are set out in the Court ’ s decisions in the cases of Charzy Å„ ski v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 1521 2/03, §§ 12– 23, ECHR 2005 ‑ V and Ratajczyk v. Poland ( dec. ), no. 11215/02, ECHR 2005-VIII, and judgment s in the case s of Krasuski v. Poland , no. 61444/00, §§ 34– 46, ECHR 2005-V and Wende and Kukó wka v. Poland , no. 56026/00, §§ 38–42 , 10 May 2007 .

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his pre-trial detention was excessive .

2. He further complains under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him.

3. He also alleges a violation of Article 6 § 2 of the Convention on account of the grounds given in the Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 22 March 2011.

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. 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?

3. Was the presumption of innocence, guaranteed by Article 6 § 2 of the Convention, respected in the present case? Reference is made, in particular, to the grounds for the Court of Appeal ’ s decision of 22 March 2011.

ITMarkQuestionStart ITMarkQuestionEnd