CEDH · PRESS;CHAMBERJUDGMENTS;ENG — 23 février 2010

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sF514A5EC { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:396pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; font-size:11pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA678F94A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right; font-size:11pt } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:11pt } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s2F5E426D { font-family:Arial; font-size:6pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE202B2ED { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s1F6AC3E7 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-style:italic } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE32676A1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:11pt } .sEE1EDB13 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s99A63BFE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4BAE41EE { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt } .sA101A847 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold } .sE0D34C67 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .sBACB3E60 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#800080 } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } .s9FE28126 { margin-top:0pt; margin-right:42.5pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:11pt } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt }   148 23.02.2010     Press release issued by the Registrar   Chamber judgment [1] Pinkowski v. Poland (application no. 16579/03)   TWO-YEAR PRE-TRIAL DETENTION OF SUSPECT IN COMPLEX INTERNATIONAL CASE INVOLVING ORGANISED CRIME NOT IN BREACH OF CONVENTION   Unanimously   No violation of Article 5 § 3 (right to liberty and security) of the European Convention on Human Rights     Principal facts   The applicant, Mariusz Pińkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Częstochowa (Poland). In March 2000 he was charged with being an accomplice to an armed robbery and murder in France and remanded in custody by the Częstochowa district court. The court justified its decision by the strong evidence against the applicant, the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him if convicted and the risk that he might obstruct the proceedings. During the proceedings, further charges were added, including false imprisonment, torture and being a member of an organised criminal gang. The applicant’s pre-trail detention was upheld by several court decisions, referring to the original grounds for the detention and additionally to the international dimension of the case. In March 2002 the regional court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-five years’ imprisonment.   In October 2002, the judgment was quashed by the court of appeal, remitting the case to the prosecution for further investigation with a view to eliminating major discrepancies in the evidence with regard to the murder victim’s death. The applicant’s detention was upheld by several court decisions. In November 2005 the regional court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment, reduced by the time spent in pre-trial detention.   In parallel to part of his pre-trial detention, the applicant served two separate prison sentences which had been imposed on him in other criminal proceedings. Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court   Relying in particular on Article 5 § 3, the applicant complained that the length of his detention on remand had been excessive.   The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 30 April 2003.   Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:   Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President, Lech Garlicki (Poland), Giovanni Bonello (Malta), Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina), David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland), Ledi Bianku (Albania), Mihai Poalelungi ( Moldova), judges,   and also Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.     Decision of the Court   The Court observed that the period of detention on remand to be taken into consideration, including the time after the quashing of the first judgment and his second conviction, and excluding the terms during which he served two separate prison sentences, amounted to almost two years.   The Court accepted that the reasonable suspicion against the applicant of having committed serious offences had warranted his initial detention. The need to determine the degree of the alleged responsibility of each of the defendants and to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings had also constituted valid grounds for the applicant’s initial detention.   As regards the applicant’s continued detention, the Court agreed with the argument brought forward by the domestic courts that in cases involving organised criminal groups there was a high risk that a detainee, if released, might bring pressure to bear on witnesses or co-accused, or might otherwise obstruct the proceedings. It took note of the fact that, according to the Polish Government’s submission, the applicant had made attempts to intimidate a witness during the proceedings.   The Court considered that while the severity of the sentence faced by an accused was a relevant element in assessing the risk of absconding or re-offending, the gravity of the charges could not by itself justify long periods of detention on remand. However, in the present case, the need to obtain voluminous evidence and including from witnesses who had to be examined with the aid of the French authorities, constituted valid grounds for maintaining the applicant’s detention.   The Court further observed that the investigation, given in particular its international character, a high number of witnesses and the fact that the material obtained from the forensic experts was contradictory as regards the cause of the victim’s death, was considerably complex. Moreover, there had not been any significant periods of inactivity in the proceedings. The domestic authorities could thus be said to have handled the case expeditiously.   The Court therefore unanimously concluded that by keeping the applicant in pre-trial detention, the authorities had not violated Article 5 § 3.   ***   The judgment is available only in English. This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. The judgments are available on its   website ( http://www.echr.coe.int ).     Press contacts   Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79) or Stefano Piedimonte (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04) Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30) Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel: + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) Céline Menu-Lange (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) Frédéric Dolt (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)   The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights. [1] Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17 ‑ member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.