CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;COMMITTEE;ENG — 6 juin 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s82B4DA5F { page-break-before:right; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s67CAFE05 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.45pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .s51DFF5CF { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:34pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify } .sE5BF05B1 { width:2.33pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sF1F8E4D4 { width:130.09pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCC22C24E { font-family:Arial; color:#3e3e3e } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s26725EEE { font-family:Arial; font-size:5.33pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 }       FIRST SECTION CASE OF JANOWSKI v. POLAND (Application no. 36483/19)             JUDGMENT   STRASBOURG 6 June 2024   This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Janowski v. Poland, The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:   Péter Paczolay , President ,   Gilberto Felici,   Raffaele Sabato , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having deliberated in private on 16   May   2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: PROCEDURE 1.     The case originated in an application against Poland lodged with the Court under Article   34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 6 August 2019. 2.     The Polish Government (“the   Government”) were given notice of the application. THE FACTS 3.     The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table. 4.     The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention. THE LAW ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5   §   3 OF THE CONVENTION 5.     The applicant complained principally that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. 6.     The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article   5 §   3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v.   Poland [GC], no.   30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000 ‑ XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006 ‑ X, with further references). 7.     In the leading cases of Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, 3   February   2009 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, 4 May 2006, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case. 8.     Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive. 9.     These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL-ESTABLISHED CASE-LAW 10.     The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article   35   §   3   (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Frasik v. Poland , no. 22933/02, §§ 64-66, ECHR 2010 (extracts). REMAINING COMPLAINTS 11.     The Government noted that the complaint under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention concerning the allegedly protracted examination of the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 4 October 2019, extending his detention on remand, had not been raised in any of the applicant’s submissions. The applicant did not comment on this point. 12.     The Court notes that while the applicant provided the Court with copies of documents relating to the procedure at issue, he did not raise, even in substance, any complaints in this respect. Accordingly, this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention (see Uruç v. Turkey (dec.), no.   39558/10, § 26, 20 October 2020). APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION 13.     Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case ‑ law (see, in particular, Kauczor , cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sum indicated in the appended table. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY, Declares the complaints concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention and the other complaints under the well-established case-law of the Court, as set out in the appended table, admissible,   and the remainder of the application inadmissible; Holds that these complaints disclose a breach of Article   5   §   3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention; Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under the well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table); Holds (a)   that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amount indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement; (b)   that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. Done in English, and notified in writing on 6 June 2024, pursuant to Rule   77   §§   2 and   3 of the Rules of Court.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Péter Paczolay   Acting Deputy Registrar   President     APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (excessive length of pre-trial detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Period of detention Court which issued detention order / examined appeal Length of detention Specific defects Other complaints under well-established case-law Amount awarded for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage per applicant (in euros) [1] 36483/19 06/08/2019 Tomasz JANOWSKI 1983   14/11/2018 to 10/11/2021 Łódź District Court, 16/11/2018, IV Kp 530/18 (first detention order);   Łódź Court of Appeal, 15/09/2021, II AKp 126/21 (last extension) 2 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 28 day(s)   failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention; use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice; persistent reliance, as the case progressed, on charges concerning membership of an organised criminal group; collective detention orders Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - On 07/02/2019 the Łódź Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 13/05/2019. The applicant appealed. His appeal was dismissed by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 08/05/2019 (case no. II AKz 298/19). On 09/05/2019 his detention was prolonged for a further period. The applicant complains that his appeal was devoid of purpose since the Court of Appeal examined it just one day before the next extension.   Art. 5 (4) - excessive length of judicial review of detention - On 08/02/2021 the Łódź Court of Appeal (case no. II AKz 21/21) decided not to examine the applicant’s appeal against the decision of 17/12/2020 to extend his detention. The court found that his detention had already been prolonged for a further period. Thus, examining his appeal served no purpose. 5,100   [1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.