CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 octobre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s719C48CE { width:279.15pt; display:inline-block } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s491F5244 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; color:#ff0000 } .s673A384F { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid }   16 October 2008     FOURTH SECTION Application no. 37128/06 by Tomasz KAWCZYŃSKI against Poland lodged on 1 September 2006   STATEMENT OF FACTS THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Tomasz Kawczyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1975 and lives in Łódź. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. B.     The applicant’s detention and the investigation On 20 September 2002 the applicant was arrested. On 24 September 2002, by a decision of the Katowice District Court, he was detained on remand on suspicion of having committed several counts of fraud and financial offences in an organised criminal group. The applicant has failed to submit a copy of the decision of 24   September   2002 or any copies of decisions extending his detention from its beginning until 21 September 2005. However he has produced a certificate issued by the Katowice Detention Centre confirming that he was detained throughout that whole period. On 21 September 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention for a further 3 months, until 30 December 2005. The court relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant committed the offences with which he had been charged and on the high complexity of the case. It further took into account that the applicant had initially gone into hiding and a warrant for his arrest had been issued on 12 March 2001. The Katowice Court of Appeal further extended the applicant’s detention several times: on 28 December 2005, 29 March 2006, 21 June 2006 and 27   September 2006. The court repeatedly relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences, on the reasonable risk that he would obstruct the proceedings and on the high complexity of the case. On 4 October 2006 the applicant appealed against the decision of 27   September 2006 extending his detention for a further three months. In his extensive reasoning (over 12 pages) he submitted, inter alia, that contrary to what the courts had found, he had a permanent address in Poland, had never gone into hiding and on the day of his arrest he had neither hidden his identity nor resisted arrest. He had been arrested in his apartment in Łódź. He also submitted that he had not been given proper medical care in the detention centre and that, although on 26 October 2005 the Regional Prosecutor had authorised the applicant to undergo medical examination, the examination had still not been carried out one year later. The applicant further maintained that his two minor daughters had been left without proper care, because their mother had undergone a complicated medical operation. He also submitted that the Court of Appeal, at each extension of his detention, had accepted the Prosecutor’s arguments concerning the high complexity of the case, but had failed to verify whether the periods of extension had in fact been used by the prosecutor to effectively continue the investigation. On 8 November 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld its decision of 27   September 2006. The court again relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences, on the severity of the penalty applicable and on the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings. On 14 December 2006 the Katowice Appelate Prosecutor asked the court to further extend the applicant’s detention until 31 March 2007. On 29 December 2006 the Katowice Court of Appeal granted the prosecutor’s request in part and extended the detention until 31   January   2007. The court found that the continued detention could no longer be justified by any objective reasons On 24 January 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal refused to further extend the applicant’s detention and released him under police supervision and an obligation to refrain from engaging in business activities. The court also forbade the applicant to leave Poland and kept his passport. The court found that the applicant’s detention had already been extended ten times and that, although between 6 October 2003 and 6 October 2004 the applicant had served a one-year prison sentence, his detention had already lasted 3 years and 4 months. On 31 January 2007 the applicant was released from detention. It appears that the investigation is still pending and that no bill of indictment has yet been lodged with the court. C.     Relevant domestic law The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ), 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, and Celejewski v.   Poland , no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006.   COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention on remand exceeded a reasonable time and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of criminal proceedings against him. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Did the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention exceed a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention?   2.     Does the length of detention on remand in the present case reveal the existence of a structural problem related to the application of that measure, having regard to the significant number of cases against Poland in which the Court has found a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessive length of detention on remand? Reference is made in this connection to the following:   -     the Court’s use of Article   46 of the Convention when addressing structural problems such as the one identified in the Scordino v. Italy case ( Scordino v. Italy (no. 1) [GC], no.   36813/97, §§   229-240, ECHR 2006 ....   -     the Committee of Ministers’ Interim Resolution CM/ResDH(2007)75 concerning the judgments of the ECHR in 44 cases against Poland relating to the excessive length of detention on remand adopted on 6 June 2007.   3.     Was the length of the investigation in the present case in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?   The Government are requested to produce a copy of the Katowice District Court’s decision of 24 September 2002 by which detention was imposed on the applicant, as well as copies of relevant decisions extending the applicant’s detention from its beginning until 21 September 2005.