CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 11 janvier 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s72EB7DC5 { margin-top:18pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s4070A5A6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } FOURTH SECTION Application no. 20142/08 Michał GORZYŃSKI against Poland lodged on 14 April 2008   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Michał Gorzyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1982 and lives in Koło. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 10 May 2005 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of illicit distribution of drugs. On 12 May 2005 he was remanded in custody by the Koło District Court. The court relied on the applicant’s confession. This decision was upheld by the Konin Regional Court on 2 June 2005. On 30 September 2005 the Koło District Court decided to impose a more lenient measure on the applicant, and set bail at 5,000 Polish zlotys (PLN). The bail had to be paid before 14 October 2005. On 30 September 2005 the applicant’s mother paid the required sum. On the same day the Koło District Court ordered the applicant’s immediate release from custody. However, the order to release the applicant was only received at the Ostrów Wielkopolski Detention Centre on 6 October 2005. The applicant was released from custody on 6 October 2005 around 3p.m. On 31 May 2007 the applicant was convicted as charged. The Koło District Court sentenced him to 1 year and 9 months’ imprisonment suspended for 5 years and a fine PLN 3,000. At the same time the court decided to credit the period of the applicant’s pre-trial detention from 10   May 2005 to 6 October 2005 towards the fine. Since one day of deprivation of liberty equalled two daily rates of a fine, the period of the applicant’s detention was credited in its entirety towards the fine. On 25 July 2007 the applicant lodged a claim for compensation for his unlawful detention between 30 September and 6 October 2005. On 19 November 2007 the Konin Regional Court dismissed his statement of claim. The court held that the period of the applicant’s detention on remand had been counted towards the fine. It further held that there were no grounds for granting the applicant any compensation for wrongful detention. On 31 January 2008 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed his further appeal. The court held that it was true that the applicant’s detention between 30 September 2005 and 6 October 2005 had not been based on a court’s decision. It further referred to the Supreme Court’s case-law according to which there were two ways of compensating for damage caused by unjustified pre-trial detention. The first was of a non-pecuniary nature, and applied when there was a possibility to credit a period of detention towards another penalty ordered against the same person in the same or another set of proceedings. The second was of a pecuniary nature, under Article 552 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and was applicable only if the first method was not practicable. These two methods were mutually exclusive in that making use of one excluded the possibility of using the other. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice Chapter 58 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, entitled “Compensation for wrongful conviction, detention on remand or arrest”, stipulates that the State is liable for wrongful convictions or for unjustifiably depriving an individual of his liberty in the course of criminal proceedings against him. Article 552 provides, in so far as relevant: “1.     An accused who, as a result of the reopening of the criminal proceedings against him or of a cassation appeal, has been acquitted or resentenced under a more lenient substantive provision, shall be entitled to compensation from the State Treasury for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage he has suffered in consequence of having served all or part of the sentence initially imposed on him. ... 4.     Entitlement to compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage shall also arise in the event of manifestly wrongful arrest or detention on remand.” Pursuant to Article 555, an application for compensation for manifestly wrongful detention on remand has to be lodged within one year from the date on which the decision terminating the criminal proceedings in question became final. Proceedings relating to an application under Article 552 are subsequent to and independent of the original criminal proceedings in which the detention was ordered. The claimant may retrospectively seek a ruling as to whether his detention was justified. He cannot, however, test the lawfulness of his continuing detention on remand and obtain release. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about the delay in releasing him from custody. 2.     He further complains under Article 5 § 5 about the outcome of the proceedings for compensation and the refusal to grant him compensation for his unlawful detention between 30 September and 6 October 2005. 3.     Lastly, he complains under Article 6 § 1 about the outcome of criminal proceedings against him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention following the Kolo District Court’s decision to release him from detention on 30 September 2005?   2.     Did the applicant have an effective and enforceable right to compensation for his unlawful detention between 30 September 2005 and 6   October 2005, as required by Article 5 § 5 of the Convention (see Włoch v.   Poland (no. 2) , no.   33475/08, 10 May 2011)?