Last Updated on November 10, 2022 by LawEuro
The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF KASZUBSKI v. POLAND
(Application no. 15466/19)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
10 November 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.
In the case of Kaszubski v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Erik Wennerström, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Lorraine Schembri Orland, judges,
and Viktoriya Maradudina, ActingDeputy Section Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 20 October 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case originated in an application against Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 14 March 2019.
2. The applicant was represented by Mr M. Bartosiak, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
3. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were given notice of the application.
THE FACTS
4. The applicant’s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.
5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. He also raised other complaints under the provisions of the Convention.
THE LAW
I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
6. The applicant complained principally that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, which reads as follows:
“Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 (c) of this Article shall be … entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.”
7. The Court observes that the general principles regarding the right to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kudła v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, § 110, ECHR 2000‑XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‑X, with further references).
8. In the leading cases of Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, 3 February 2009 and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, 4 May 2006, the Court already found a violation in respect of issues similar to those in the present case.
9. Having examined all the material submitted to it, the Court has not found any fact or argument capable of persuading it to reach a different conclusion on the admissibility and merits of these complaints. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention was excessive.
10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.
II. OTHER ALLEGED VIOLATIONS UNDER WELL‑ESTABLISHED CASE‑LAW
11. The applicant submitted other complaints which also raised issues under the Convention, given the relevant well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table). These complaints are not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention, nor are they inadmissible on any other ground. Accordingly, they must be declared admissible. Having examined all the material before it, the Court concludes that they also disclose violations of the Convention in the light of its findings in Baranowski v. Poland, no. 28358/95, §§ 68-77, ECHR 2000-III, Shcherbina v. Russia, no. 41970/11, §§ 62-65, 26 June 2014, and Khodorkovskiy v. Russia, no. 5829/04, §§ 243-48, 31 May 2011.
III. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
12. Article 41 of the Convention provides:
“If the Court finds that there has been a violation of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, and if the internal law of the High Contracting Party concerned allows only partial reparation to be made, the Court shall, if necessary, afford just satisfaction to the injured party.”
13. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case‑law (see, in particular, Kauczor, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table and dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction.
14. The Court further considers it appropriate that the default interest rate should be based on the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank, to which should be added three percentage points.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
1. Declares the application admissible;
2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;
3. Holds that there has been a violation of the Convention as regards the other complaints raised under well-established case-law of the Court (see appended table);
4. Holds
(a) that the respondent State is to pay the applicant, within three months, the amounts indicated in the appended table, to be converted into the currency of the respondent State at the rate applicable at the date of settlement;
(b) that from the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amounts at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.
5. Dismisses the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 10 November 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Viktoriya Maradudina Erik Wennerström
ActingDeputy Registrar President
_______________
APPENDIX
Application raising complaints under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention
(excessive length of pre-trial detention)
| Application no.
Date of introduction |
Applicant’s name
Year of birth |
Representative’s name and location | Period of detention | Court which issued detention order / examined appeal | Length of detention | Specific defects | Other complaints under well-established case-law | Amount awarded for pecuniary and non‑pecuniary damage
(in euros)[1] |
Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application
(in euros)[2] |
| 15466/19
14/03/2019 |
Piotr KASZUBSKI
1992 |
Bartosiak Mariusz
Warszawa |
10/03/2017
to 02/10/2019 |
Warsaw-Mokotów District Court, 18/03/2017, case no. XIV Kp 772/17 (decision upholding detention order of the Warsaw Regional Court, 07/08/2018, case no. X Kz 819/15), Warsaw Court of Appeal, 02/10/2019, case no. II AKz 1084/19 (decision releasing the applicant) | 2 year(s) and 6 month(s) and 23 day(s)
|
fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts as the case progressed;
the prosecutor’s declaration made during the court session on 22 January 2018 severely undermines the domestic courts’ conclusions as to the necessity of the applicant’s detention |
Art. 5 (4) – deficiencies in proceedings for review of the lawfulness of detention –
Appeals against the Warsaw Court of Appeal’s decisions extending the applicant’s detention dated 30/08/2018, 28/11/2018, 25/02/2019, 31/05/2019, 27/08/2019 were processed within periods lasting between 29 and 50 days |
4,600 | 2,677 |
[1] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
[2] Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.
Leave a Reply