CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 3 février 2009

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s9FF10068 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 116 February 2009 Kauczor v. Poland - 45219/06 Judgment 3.2.2009 [Section IV] Article 46 Article 46-2 Execution of judgment Respondent State required to adopt further measures to eliminate structural problem of length of pre-trial detention.   Facts : In 2000 the applicant was arrested and detained on suspicion of murder. His detention was extended by numerous court decisions. In 2006 the competent court dismissed his complaint about the length of the criminal proceedings. In December 2007 he was released; the criminal proceedings were, however, still pending when the European Court’s judgment was delivered. In 2007 the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a Resolution concluding that the great number of Court judgments finding Poland in violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the unreasonable length of pre-trial detention revealed a structural problem. The Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights also raised the issue in a memorandum to the Polish Government. In 2007 the Code of Criminal Procedure was amended with a view to preventing delays (notably in the event of defence counsel ceasing to act) and strengthening the powers of the authorities to discipline participants in proceedings (by fines and other admonishment). In addition, the trial courts and prosecution authorities took a series of practical measures designed to make criminal proceedings more efficient by setting time-limits for hearings well in advance, holding hearings on Saturdays or severing charges against co-accused to separate proceedings. Moreover, the Government ordered that information relating to the length of pre-trial detention requirements under the Convention and the Court’s case-law in Polish cases becirculated among judges and prosecutors on a regular basis. Law: Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 – violations (unanimously). Article 46 – The Court had recently delivered a considerable number of judgments against Poland in which a violation of Article 5 § 3 on account of the excessive length of detention was found (65 in 2007-2008). In addition, approximately 145 applications raising the same issue were currently pending before the Court. The Court had previously held that the reasons relied on by the domestic courts in their decisions to extend pre-trial detention were limited to paraphrasing the grounds for detention provided for by the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the authorities had failed to envisage the possibility of imposing other preventive measures. Moreover, while the relevant provisions of the domestic law defined detention as the most extreme preventive measure, it appeared to be frequently used by the domestic courts. The Resolution of the Committee of Ministers and statistical data demonstrated that the violation of the applicant's right under Article 5 § 3 had originated in a widespread problem arising out of the malfunctioning of the Polish criminal-justice system which had affected, and might still affect in the future, an as yet unidentified, but potentially considerable, number of persons charged in criminal proceedings. The Court therefore agreed with the Committee of Ministers that the excessive length of pre-trial detention in Poland revealed a structural problem consisting of “a practice that was incompatible with the Convention”. The Court welcomed the steps the respondent State had already taken to remedy the structural problems and considered that they might contribute to reducing the excessive use of detention as a preventive measure. However, in view of the extent of the problem, consistent and long-term efforts, such as the adoption of further measures, had to continue in order to achieve compliance with Article 5 §   3 of the Convention. Article 41 – EUR 10,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes