CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 14 mars 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sFC8B7517 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:48pt; text-align:center } .sEE8FA83B { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; 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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s507703F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s8FA53EDF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:42pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sC769D9E0 { margin-top:42pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s85D2D43C { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s9296A950 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }       FOURTH SECTION Application no. 23456/12 Łukasz CZARNIECKI against Poland lodged on 10 April 2012 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Łukasz Czarniecki, is a Polish national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Sosnowiec. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 11 January 2006 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence against his father and sister, uttering threats and of acts of cruelty towards his dog. On 13 January 2006 the Sosnowiec District Court (S ąd Rejonowy ) heard the applicant and ordered his detention on remand until 11   April   2006. The court noted that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question. On 6 April 2006 the court extended the applicant’s detention until 11   July   2006. The court referred to the expert psychiatrists’ opinion that there was a risk that the applicant might commit yet another offence. On 25   May 2006 the Sosnowiec District Court gave a decision and discontinued the criminal proceedings against the applicant. The court found it established that the applicant had committed the offences with which he was charged. However, he could not have been held criminally responsible as he had been suffering from a schizophrenic type of a delusional disorder. It further referred to the expert’s opinion and ordered that the applicant be placed in a psychiatric hospital. On 5 July 2006 the District Court extended the applicant’s detention until his placement in a psychiatric hospital. The applicant was released from a regular detention centre on 16   October   2006 and placed in the Lubliniec Psychiatric Hospital. He was released from that hospital on 6 December 2007. On 15 October 2010 the applicant filed a statement of claim against the State Treasury seeking compensation for damage he had suffered as a result of his detention in a regular detention centre instead of detention in a psychiatric hospital. On 16 June 2011 the Katowice Góra Regional Court awarded the applicant 10,000 Polish zlotys (PLN) compensation for non-pecuniary damage for unjustified detention. The court relied on the resolution of the Supreme Court of 15 September 1999, according to which the State Treasury was responsible for detention of persons in whose cases proceedings were discontinued due to their mental disorder. The prosecutor appealed. On 11 October 2011 the Katowice Court of Appeal gave judgment and dismissed the applicant’s claim. The court noted that the applicant’s detention had been justified throughout the whole period. On 9 November 2011 the Katowice Court of Appeal granted the applicant legal aid for the purposes of preparing a cassation appeal and assigned A. H-M to the case. Since A. H-M could not assist the applicant, the Court of Appeal assigned a new legal-aid lawyer A.K. on 16   November   2011. By a written legal opinion dated 30 November 2011 (filed with the Court of Appeal on 9 December 2011) the lawyer informed the court that she was refusing to prepare a cassation appeal in the case. She was of the view that there were no legal grounds on which such an appeal could be prepared. This opinion was served on the applicant on 12 December 2011. He was further informed that he had 30 days to file a cassation appeal prepared by a lawyer of his own choice. On 14 December 2011 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s request to be assigned a new legal aid lawyer. B.     Relevant domestic law Article   264 §   3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides: “If the proceedings were discontinued by reason of insanity of the accused, preliminary detention may be maintained pending the application of a preventive measure.” COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complains without invoking any provisions of the Convention about the unlawfulness of his detention on remand and the fact that he was placed in a regular detention centre, in a cell with smokers. 2.     He further complains under Article   6 §   1 about the outcome of the proceedings for compensation. 3.     Lastly, he complains under Article 13 that his legal-aid lawyer refused to file a cassation appeal on his behalf. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the applicant deprived of his liberty in breach of Article   5 §   1 of the Convention? In particular, was the applicant’s detention between 25   May 2006 and 16 October 2006 in an ordinary detention centre compatible with his rights under Article   5 §   1   (e) of the Convention (cf. Mocarska v. Poland no. 26917/05, §§ 41-49,   6   November   2007)?