Last Updated on April 28, 2019 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 60347/10
Sebastian RUDZIS
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 March 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Ksenija Turković, President,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek,
Armen Harutyunyan, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 October 2010,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
1. The applicant, Mr Sebastian Rudzis, is a Polish national, who was born in 1974 and is detained in Krzywaniec Prison.
2. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. On 24 February 2009 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand on charges related to drug trafficking. Afterwards, the investigation was joined with other sets of proceedings against the applicant. During the first two months the prosecutor obtained three expert opinions from experts in psychiatry and toxicology.
5. On 2 September 2009 the prosecutor ordered seizure of money found during a search at the applicant’s house. During the investigation the prosecutor also arrested other suspects and charged them with offences allegedly committed within the same criminal gang. The authorities also dealt with the applicant’s requests for release and prepared applications to the court to extend his detention on remand. Furthermore, international legal assistance was requested and the prosecutor obtained information from German authorities. Further expert opinions were prepared following the prosecutor’s orders.
6. The charges against the applicant were supplemented on three occasions between March and June 2010.
7. On 30 June 2010 the applicant was indicted before the ZielonaGóra Regional Court. The bill of indictment was directed against the applicant and other co-accused and concerned alleged activities of a gang trading in drugs between April 2008 and February 2009. The gang allegedly operated in Poland and Germany and traded mostly in heroin. The applicant was charged with multiple offences acting as the leader of the gang.
8. The trial court on several occasions dealt with extensions of detention on remand of the applicant, and other co-accused, and with their requests for release. The Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals against the extensions of his detention.
9. On 16 October 2012 the ZielonaGóra Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to six years’ and six months’ imprisonment.
10. The applicant and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment.
11. On 19 September 2013 the Poznań Court of Appeal partly upheld the judgment and partly amended it. The judgment is final.
B. Proceedings under the 2004 Act
12. The applicant lodged a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaint about breach of the right to have a case examined in an investigation conducted or supervised by a prosecutor and in judicial proceedings without undue delay (ustawa o skardzenanaruszenieprawastrony do rozpoznaniasprawy w postępowaniuprzygotowawczymprowadzonymlubnadzorowanymprzezprokuratoraipostępowaniusądowym bez nieuzasadnionejzwłoki – “the 2004 Act”).
13. On 25 May 2010 the Poznań Court of Appeal dismissed the complaint. The court examined all actions that had been taken by the prosecutor and found no delays on the part of the authorities. In particular it considered that the expert opinions requested at the beginning of the investigation had been issued promptly, within several weeks. Taking into account the complexity of the case and the growing number of accused in the case the court concluded that the length of the investigation had not been excessive and that there had been no delays or periods of inactivity for which the prosecuting authorities had been responsible.
COMPLAINT
14. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of criminal proceedings.
THE LAW
A. Article 6 § 1 of the Convention
15. The applicant’s complaint concerned unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings. He relied on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant, provides:
“In the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …”
16. The Government made a preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies under Article 35 § 3 of the Convention. They argued that the applicant should have lodged another complaint under the 2004 Act during the judicial stage of the proceedings.
17. The applicant in general asked the Court to give a ruling in his case. He did not comment on the Government’s objection or on the admissibility and merits of the case.
18. The Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government’s objection of non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies, the present case being in any event manifestly ill-founded, for the following reasons.
19. The Court reiterates that the reasonableness of the length of proceedings must be assessed in the light of the circumstances of the case and with reference to the following criteria: the complexity of the case, the conduct of the applicant and the relevant authorities (see, among many other authorities, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 67, ECHR 1999-II, and Kuśmierek v. Poland, no. 10675/02, § 62, 21 September 2004).
20. The Court firstly notes that the period to be taken into consideration began on 24 February 2009 and ended on 19 September 2013. The proceedings thus lasted four years and almost seven months at two levels of jurisdiction.
21. Having regard to the nature of the case, the Court considers that it was complex. The allegations against the applicant were very serious and included charges of leading an organised international criminal gang trading in heroine (see paragraph 7 above). It involved numerous accused and required taking expert evidence. Also, the prosecutor asked for international legal assistance and needed to obtain information from the foreign authorities (see paragraph 5 above).
22. As to the conduct of the authorities, the Court first observes that the investigation against the applicant lasted from his arrest on 24 February 2009 to 30 June 2010, when the bill of indictment was submitted to the Poznań Regional Court. The investigative authorities undertook many actions including securing expert evidence and dealing with matters pertaining to detention on remand. Several investigations against the applicant were joined to the present set of proceedings and the prosecutor charged other persons in connection with the activity of the gang (see paragraph 5 above). The charges against the applicant were also supplemented on several occasions (see paragraph 6 above). The Court would thus agree with the conclusions of the Poznań Regional Court, which dismissed the applicant’s complaint under the 2004 Act, finding that there had been no delays or periods of inactivity for which the prosecuting authorities had been responsible (see paragraph 13 above).
23. The applicant made no specific allegation about the subsequent period of over three years when the case was pending before the trial and appellate courts. The Court has no further information regarding the number of the hearings held by the trial court or the overall conduct of the domestic authorities. In view of the above, and in the absence of the applicant’s submissions on the admissibility and merits of his application, the Court concludes that the applicant failed to sufficiently justify his original allegation that the length of the criminal proceedings had been in breach of the “reasonable time” principle.
24. Having regard to the foregoing, the Court concludes that this part of the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
B. Article 13 of the Convention
25. The Court raised of its own motion an issue under Article 13 of the Convention, in that the applicant had no effective domestic remedy in respect of the protracted length of proceedings in his case. Article 13 reads:
“Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.”
26. The Government contested a breach of this provision of the Convention. The applicant did not comment on this issue.
27. The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 § 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time. However, the “effectiveness” of a “remedy” within the meaning of that provision does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see Kudła v. Poland[GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 154 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI).
28. The Court further reiterates that the word “remedy” within the meaning of Article 13 does not mean a remedy which is bound to succeed, but simply an accessible remedy before an authority competent to examine the merits of a complaint (see, for example,Šidlová v. Slovakia, no. 50224/99, § 77, 26 September 2006,Figiel v. Poland (no. 2), no. 38206/05, § 33, 16September 2008, and Baszczyński v. Poland (dec.), no. 77103/13, § 51, 12December 2017).
29. Having regard to its finding in respect of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and the fact that the applicant had available to him, and made use of, a length complaint under the 2004 Act, the Court concludes that this part of the application is manifestly ill‑founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 April 2019.
RenataDegener KsenijaTurković
DeputyRegistrar President
Leave a Reply