CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 18 septembre 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } Communicated on 18 September 2020 Published on 5 October 2020   FIRST SECTION Application no. 22647/19 Jakub Ryszard RUDNICKI against Poland lodged on 18 April 2019 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Mr Jakub Ryszard Rudnicki, is a Polish national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Warsaw. He is represented before the Court by Mr   A.   Pietryka, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. Until 31 December 2012 the applicant was employed as a deputy director of the City of Warsaw Property Management Office ( Biuro Gospodarowania Nieruchomościami Miasta Stołecznego Warszawy ). He was tasked with the supervision of the so-called reprivatisation proceedings, concerning the reacquisition of properties, which had been nationalised by the communist government in 1945. Due to his function, he was empowered to issue administrative decisions on behalf of the Mayor of Warsaw. On 21 February 2014 the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor ( Prokurator Okręgowy ), in response to an article published in the Polish daily “ Gazeta Wyborcza” , launched an investigation into the allegations of abuse of power by the applicant, concerning his acquiring a property located in Warsaw. On 27 February 2015 the investigation was discontinued. On 26 June 2015 the same prosecutor refused to investigate an alleged fraud committed by the applicant and a lawyer R.N, during a purchase of a property located in K. In April 2016 “ Gazeta Wyborcza” published a series of articles concerning the reprivatisation of another property located in Warsaw. On 30   May 2016 an investigation was launched into the matters described therein. On 7 September 2016 the applicant was questioned as a witness by the Warsaw Regional Prosecutor. On 7 October 2016 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor decided to reopen an investigation concerning the alleged fraud during the purchase of a property located in K., which had been terminated on 26 June 2015. In 2016 the applicant started to cooperate with authorities in explaining the circumstances of reprivatisation of certain properties. He had occasionally met with Mr M. K. – then Coordinator of the Polish Special Services, his deputy Mr M. W. (whom he also knew privately) and several agents of the Central Anti-corruption Bureau ( Centralne Biuro Antykorupcyjne ). The applicant stated that the authorities not only expected him to provide information on the reprivatisation of Warsaw properties, but also to provide damaging information concerning the Mayor of Warsaw. According to the applicant, he failed to deliver the desired information, which led to a conflict with the above-mentioned authorities. On 30 January 2017 at 6.15 a.m. the applicant was arrested in his apartment by the agents of the Central Anti-corruption Bureau, acting under an order issued by the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor. At the same time, the applicant’s parents were also arrested, as well as R.N. Their arrest was immediately reported by the state-run media. On the same day the applicant was charged with accepting a bribe from R.N. in exchange for his help in the reprivatisation of a property, and with fraud. The applicant pleaded not guilty and refused to testify. On 31   January 2017 the prosecutor lodged a request with the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) to detain the applicant on remand. On 1 February 2017, prior to the applicant’s hearing, the Minister of Justice Prosecutor General, Mr Z. Z. held a press briefing together with Mr   B. Ś., the State Prosecutor ( Prokurator Krajowy ). Mr   Z.Z. stated that despite obvious evidence, the prosecutors had previously refused to investigate any wrongdoing, but with changes introduced by the new government, the impunity of criminals was over. The briefing was concluded just before the applicant’s court hearing. The Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court granted the prosecutor’s request and detained the applicant on remand until 30 April 2017. It found that there was a high probability of the applicant having committed a fraud, which carried a penalty of over eight years in prison, which in itself constituted a sufficient reason for detention. It also found that although the applicant had no prior criminal record, he could attempt to obstruct the proceedings in order to avoid a significant penalty. On 1 March 2017 the Wrocław Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against his placement in detention on remand. On 24 April 2017 the Warsaw Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 29 July 2017. It found that the applicant was facing a potentially long prison sentence and could attempt to obstruct the proceedings, due to the complexity of the investigation. On 8 June 2017 the Warsaw Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) dismissed an appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer. On 24 July 2017 his detention on remand was again extended, until 27   October 2017. The Warsaw Regional Court relied on the same grounds as previously. On 12 September 2017 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 23 October 2017 the Warsaw Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 25 January 2018. It stated that bail, regardless of its amount, would not secure the proper course of proceedings. On 19   December 2017 the Warsaw Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 22 December 2017 the applicant’s father, who was charged with the same fraud as the applicant, was released from detention on bail. Throughout 2017 the applicant’s lawyers repeatedly asked the prosecutor to grant them access to the case-file, along with a right to make photocopies. All their requests for making photocopies were denied and the denials were upheld by the relevant courts. On 24 January 2018 the Wrocław Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 25 April 2018. It noted that there was a high probability of his having committed the crimes he stood accused of and that the risk of his obstructing the proceedings was substantiated by the fact that he allegedly threatened someone with death at the time when he was employed at the Property Management Office, should that person have attempted to appeal against an administrative decision issued by the applicant. The court also held that the extension of the applicant’s detention was justified by extraordinary circumstances, arising from the complexity of the proceedings. The decision was upheld by the same court on 9 March 2018. On 19 March 2018 the Sieci weekly magazine published an article entitled “How mafia ruled Warsaw” ( Jak mafia rządziła Warszawą ), which contained detailed transcripts from R.N.’s testimony, unfavourable towards the applicant. His lawyers again requested access to the case file, along with a possibility of making photocopies, but the request was denied on 12   April 2018. Their appeal was dismissed by the Warsaw Regional Court on 11   June 2018. On 30 March 2018 the prosecutor withdrew the charge of bribery against the applicant. On 19 April 2018 the Wrocław Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention on remand, subject to a proviso that if bail in the amount of 2.000.000 Polish zlotys (PLN) (500.000 euros (EUR) be posted, he would be released. The decision was publicly criticised by the Minister of Justice Prosecutor General Z.Z. and Mr   S.   K. – a member of the parliamentary reprivatisation committee ( komisja reprywatyzacyjna ). On 9 May 2018 the same court quashed the order of 19   April 2018 insofar as it provided for the applicant’s release subject to bail being posted. One of the judges sitting on the panel appended a dissenting opinion, indicating that detention on remand should be applied only if other preventive measures would prove to be insufficient. On 16 July 2018 the Wrocław Court of Appeal again extended the applicant’s detention on remand, until 21 October 2018. It held that the applicant posed a high risk of obstructing the proceedings and referred to the extraordinary complexity of the case. On 8 October 2018 a bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Warsaw Regional Court. On 18 October 2018 the same court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 19 January 2019, subject to a proviso that if bail in the amount of PLN 2.000.000 (EUR 500.000) be posted, he would be released. On 19   November 2018 the Warsaw Court of Appeal increased the amount of bail by PLN 500.000 (EUR 125.000). On 20 December 2018 the Warsaw Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand until 30 January 2019. On 11 January 2019 the same court agreed to mortgage the applicant’s property in order to secure bail and he was released from detention. As of the date of introduction of the application with the Court, the proceedings before the Warsaw Regional Court were yet to commence. The case files comprised over 450 volumes (over 90,000 pages). Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning detention on remand ( tymczasowe aresztowanie ), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other so-called “preventive measures” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Gołek v.   Poland (no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006); Celejewski v.   Poland (no.   17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006); and Kauczor v.   Poland (no.   45219/06, §§ 25-33, 3 February 2009). COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention?