Published on 28 August 2023

FIRST SECTION

Application no. 23220/22 Wiktor WRÓBEL against Poland lodged on 29 April 2022 communicated on 10 July 2023

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

The application concerns the applicant’s allegedly unlawful and arbitrary detention on remand. On 20 October 2020 the Tychy District Court (“the District Court”) convicted him of stalking, sentenced him to a fine and imposed a restraining order. That judgment was quashed on appeal and the case was remitted for re ‑ examination. The criminal proceedings are pending.

On 13 September 2021 the District Court ordered that the applicant undergo a psychiatric examination. Meanwhile, he had moved abroad and had not provided the court with his new address. Therefore, the District Court ordered that the applicant be arrested and brought for examination since he had not collected his mail and had evaded the authorities. Subsequently the same court detained the applicant on remand in absentia and issued a wanted notice. He was arrested on 8 February 2022, having voluntarily returned to Poland from the United Kingdom. On 11 March 2022 the District Court extended his detention, noting explicitly that a proper assessment of the applicant’s mental health was required. It noted that the penalty to which the applicant was liable was not deprivation of liberty and held that, had the applicant not evaded the authorities, his detention would be impermissible.

On 25 March 2022 the District Court ordered the applicant to undergo an extended psychiatric examination as the expert psychiatrists were unable to evaluate properly his mental health. The decision was upheld by the Katowice Regional Court which explained that it would not have been permissible to order an extended psychiatric examination had the applicant not been detained. However, since that detention had been ordered based on the applicant’s evasion of the authorities, his extended examination was lawful. On 22 June 2022 the District Court extended his detention. The applicant underwent psychiatric examination between 4 and 29 August 2022. On the latter date the District Court released the applicant. It explicitly held that the detention had been applied “in order to secure the proper course of the proceedings, that is to assess the applicant’s mental health” and since that reason no longer existed, the applicant could be released.

The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention that he was unlawfully deprived of his liberty and that his detention on remand was applied only to order his psychiatric examination which circumvented Article 259 § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. This article prohibits ordering detention on remand if the circumstances indicate that the penalty to be imposed would be conditionally suspended deprivation of liberty or a lighter penalty, or that the period of detention on remand would be longer than the anticipated deprivation of liberty.

QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES

1. Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did the deprivation of liberty fall within paragraphs (b), (c) or (d) of this provision?

2. Was the applicant’s detention applied with a view to ordering his extended psychiatric examination? Reference is made to the reasoning of the Tychy District Court’s decision of 29 August 2022 (II K 631/21) which ordered the applicant’s release after the psychiatric observation had been completed.

3. Was the applicant’s detention during the period between 8 February and 29 August 2022 ordered “in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law” and free from arbitrariness?