CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2015

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA6BC7FA7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:right } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s2D57E2E { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; text-transform:uppercase } .sA8776625 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s72C8F48C { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sFF80D40E { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase }     Communicated on 19 January 2015   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 61041/10 Arkadiusz KRUCZEK against Poland lodged on 16 September 2010 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Arkadiusz Kruczek, is a Polish national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Gdańsk. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The first set of proceedings On 4 February 1999 the Iława District Court (II K 274/98) convicted the applicant of thefts on trains and sentenced him to one year imprisonment. On 20 May 1999 the Olsztyn Regional Court upheld the judgment. The applicant served this sentence between 20 May 2000 and 20 May 2001. In 2009 the Olsztyn Regional Court decided to re-open the criminal proceedings against the applicant. Following the re-opening, the Olsztyn Regional Court again examined the case and on 21 May 2009 upheld the first-instance judgment. 2.     The second set of proceedings On 20 December 2001 the Torun District Court (II K 269/97) convicted the applicant of thefts on trains and sentenced him to one year and six months’ imprisonment suspended on probation for five years. On 6 March 2003 the Regional Court upheld the judgment. On 17 September 2009 the Gdańsk District Court decided to enforce the judgment as the applicant had committed a similar offence for which he had been convicted by a final sentence (by the judgment of 2 March 2006, see the third set of proceedings below). This decision was upheld on appeal by the Gdańsk Regional Court. 3.     The third set of proceedings On 2 March 2006 the Tczewo District Court (II K 61/05) convicted the applicant of thefts on trains and sentenced him to three years’ and six months’ imprisonment. On 29 January 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court upheld the judgment. On 5 May 2007 the applicant started to serve this sentence. On 29 April 2010 the Supreme Court granted the cassation appeal lodged by the Prosecutor General and quashed the Regional Court’s judgment of 29   January 2007. The court considered that the applicant had not been properly notified of the hearing before the Regional Court. On 30 April 2010, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court, the applicant lodged several requests with different courts asking to be released from detention. He alleged that the District Court’s judgment of 2 March 2006 could no longer be considered as a final conviction. Thus the order to enforce the suspended sentence given on 17 September 2009 should be quashed. The Gdańsk District Court dealt with his application only on 6 July 2010 and the applicant was released on the same day. The court granted the application and quashed the decision of 17 September 2009. It established that the ground for enforcing the judgment of 20 December 2001, sentencing the applicant to one year and six months’ imprisonment, had been his new conviction of 2 March 2006. However, after the Supreme Court’s judgment of 29 April 2010 quashing the second-instance judgment, this conviction was no longer final and could no longer be a ground for enforcing a suspended sentence. On 3 November 2010 the Gdańsk Regional Court re-examined the case following the Supreme Court’s judgment of 29 April 2010. It upheld the applicant’s original conviction of 2 March 2006. The judgment is final. 4.     The cumulative sentence On 25 November 2009 the Gdańsk Regional Court (IV K 113/09) gave a cumulative sentence in respect of the applicant’s convictions given in the three sets of criminal proceedings described above and a few other convictions. The applicant was ordered to serve a total conviction of two years’ imprisonment and pay a 1,650 Polish zlotys (PLN) fine. The period between 10 May 2000 and 10 May 2001, during which he had served a sentence, was calculated towards the penalty (see the first set of proceedings above). 5.     The proceedings for compensation On 4 May 2010 the applicant lodged a civil claim for compensation for his allegedly illegal detention. The applicant claimed PLN 11,000 in compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage sustained in connection with his detention without legal grounds. Subsequently the applicant lodged two complaints about the unreasonable length of his compensation proceedings under section 5 of the Law of 17   June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time ( Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki ) (“the 2004 Act”). His complaints were dismissed on 12 July and 3   November 2010. On 24 July 2011 the Gdańsk District Court (IC 633/11) gave an in absentia judgment in which it partly granted the applicant’s action and awarded him PLN 5,000 in compensation. The court held that, following the Supreme Court’s judgment of 29 April 2010, the courts had to re-examine the decision of 17 September 2007 ordering enforcement of his other conviction. This happened on 6 July 2010 which was an excessive delay, particularly taking into account the fact that the applicant had been detained. The delay occurred mostly due to difficulty by the District Court to obtain the case-file. The court concluded that the applicant had been illegaly deprived of liberty and should receive compensation for it. The defendant, the State Treasury - Gdańsk District Court, appealed ( sprzeciw ) against the in absentia judgment but it was dismissed by the same court on 29 November 2012. The court considered that between 6   May and 5 July 2010 the applicant had been illegally deprived of liberty. The court acknowledged that following the Supreme Court’s quashing of the final judgment the matter of execution of the applicant’s sentence had to be reconsidered. However, the relevant court did that with an excessive delay which justified granting the applicant compensation. The defendant further appealed contesting the liability of the District Court for the delay with which the applicant had been released from detention. On 20 December 2013 the Gdańsk Regional Court finally dismissed the appeal. B.     Relevant domestic law Articles 417 et seq. of the Civil Code ( Kodeks Cywilny ) provide for the State’s liability in tort. Article 417 of the Civil Code reads in so far as relevant:   “1. The State Treasury, municipality or another legal person wielding public power by virtue of the law shall be liable for damage caused by an unlawful act or omission in the exercise of that power.” COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 5 § 1 of the Convention about his illegal detention between May and July 2010.   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 during the period between 29 April 2010 and 6 July 2010 fall within paragraph (a) of this provision?   2.     May the applicant still claim to be a victim of a violation of the Convention, within the meaning of Article 34?