Information Note on the Court’s case-law 20

July 2000

Trzaska v. Poland - 25792/94

Judgment 11.7.2000 [Section I]

Article 5

Article 5-3

Length of pre-trial detention

Length of detention on remand: violation

Article 5-4

Procedural guarantees of review

Detainee not entitled to attend hearings concerning detention on remand and non-communication of prosecutor’s submissions: violation

Facts : The applicant was arr ested in June 1991 on suspicion of attempted manslaughter, robbery and rape. A number of hearings were held, but the proceedings had to be recommenced twice, firstly after a change in the composition of the court and secondly after a change of the applican t’s lawyers. Further hearings were held, and at one of these, in May 1994, the applicant requested his release. The request was refused by the Regional Court and his appeal was rejected by the Court of Appeal. A further request was also rejected by the Reg ional Court in July 1994. In March 1995 he was convicted and sentenced to 25 years' imprisonment. This judgment was later quashed, but after a reconsideration of the case the applicant was again convicted in May 1997 and given the same sentence.

Law : Artic le 5 § 3 – The period to be examined began on 1 May 1993 when Poland’s recognition of the right of petition took effect, although the fact that the applicant had at that time been in detention for over one year and ten months must be taken into account. No twithstanding the retrospective effect under Polish law of the judgment which quashed the initial conviction, the applicant’s detention after that conviction was, under the Convention, detention “after conviction by a competent court” and that period is no t included for the purposes of Article 5 § 3 (whereas during the subsequent period he was again in detention on remand). The total period to be examined is three years and seven months. The courts relied on the serious nature of the offences and, in one de cision, on the risk of collusion. However, no concrete factual circumstances were invoked in respect of the risk of collusion. The Government argued that the risk of re-offending must also have been relied on, but it is difficult to accept this as a releva nt and sufficient ground for a protracted detention when it was not expressly referred to in any of the court decisions. Moreover, taking into account certain periods of inactivity, the authorities failed to show the requisite diligence.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 5 § 4 – Since the applicant’s first request for release was made during a hearing at which he was present with his lawyer, the court review was carried out in a manner which respected the principle of equality of arms. Ho wever, as it took place two years and ten months after the applicant was detained and over one year after Poland recognised the right of petition, the review was not carried out “speedily”. As for the other types of proceedings by which the applicant’s det ention was reviewed, the law at the time did not entitle the applicant or his lawyer to attend the relevant hearings, while the prosecutor was so entitled, nor did it require communication to them of the prosecutor’s submissions, thus depriving the applica nt of any opportunity to contest the reasons invoked to justify his detention.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 6 § 1 – The Court can only examine the period of four years, one month and seven days after Poland’s recognition of the right of pet ition (until May 1997), although it can have regard to the fact that the proceedings had already lasted over one year and ten months. The case disclosed a certain complexity but there are no grounds to hold that it was particularly complex. The applicant c ontributed to the length of the proceedings, but there were also certain delays attributable to the authorities and on an overall assessment the length was excessive.

Conclusion : violation (unanimously).

Article 41 - The Court considered that the finding of a violation constituted in itself just satisfaction for any damage sustained by the applicant. It made an award in respect of costs.

© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by t he Registry does not bind the Court.

Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes