Last Updated on April 24, 2019 by LawEuro
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 6612/11
Rafał SADŁO
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 February 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 22 November 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 Rafał Sadło, is a Polish national, who was born in 1978 and is currently detained in Kielce prison. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Kołodziejczyk, a lawyer practising in Warsaw.
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. The circumstances of the case
3. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
4. In 2000 the applicant was charged with multiple counts of car theft and forgery.
5. On 16 February 2000 the Starachowice District Prosecutor drew up a bill of indictment against the applicant and six other co-accused (case no. II K 180/00). The document was filed with the Starachowice District Court and included copies to be sent to the parties (the co-accused, their lawyers and several civil parties). The applicant was informed of the filing of the bill of indictment by a letter from the district prosecutor’s office.
6. On 22 February 2000 the president of the Criminal Division of the Starachowice District Court ordered the service of the bill of indictment on the co-accused and their lawyers. The court’s clerk made a note that the order had been executed. The case file contains proof that the bill of indictment was served on the applicant’s lawyer.
7. The trial began on 29 March 2000. During the first hearing the prosecutor read out the bill of indictment.
8. During the hearing held on 8 May 2000 the applicant stated that he understood the bill of indictment. The relevant passage from the minutes reads as follows:
“I understand the bill of indictment. I admit to having committed the offences [that I] have been charged with and I do not contest the bill of indictment. The truth is written there.”
9. On 2 May 2001 the Starachowice District Court convicted the applicant as charged. The applicant appealed.
10. On 2 July 2001 the applicant sent a letter to the Starachowice District Court asking to be served with a copy of the bill of indictment of 16 February 2000 or a copy of the judgment of 2 May 2001. The presiding judge ordered that the bill of indictment be sent to the applicant. The court’s clerk made a note that the order was executed.
11. However, on 10 July 2001, the Starachowice District Court replied that the documents could not be sent as the case file had in the meantime been transferred to the Kielce Regional Court, together with an appeal against the first-instance judgment.
12. On 23 November 2001 the Kielce Regional Court quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case to the Starachowice District Court.
13. On 4 August 2003 the applicant again asked to be served with a copy of the bill of indictment of 16 February 2000 (II K 180/00). On 12 August 2003 the presiding judge made the following note on the applicant’s request: “send a copy of the bill of indictment”. The court’s clerk made a note that the order had been executed. However, according to the applicant he never received the document.
14. On 21 July 2004 the applicant escaped from custody.
15. On an unknown later date in 2004 the applicant was charged with escaping from lawful custody (case no. II K 280/04). According to the applicant, the bill of indictment concerning that charge was not served on him. Subsequently, that case was joined with the main case.
16. On 26 April 2005 the Starachowice District Court convicted the applicant in relation to all the charges.
17. On 27 April 2007 the Kielce Regional Court quashed that judgment and remitted the case to the District Court.
18. On 4 December 2007 the applicant’s case was again joined with another case (II K 321/07). According to the judge’s instruction the merger decision was to be sent to the applicant and his lawyer. The case file includes the original joinder decision and the clerk’s note that the order had been executed.
19. On 16 January 2008 the Starachowice District Court discontinued the proceedings in respect of one of the charges.
20. On 6 October 2008 the Starachowice District Court gave judgment and convicted the applicant of numerous counts of car theft, several counts of extortion, forgery of documents and escaping from lawful custody. It also acquitted the applicant of some charges. The applicant was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment.
21. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment, alleging, amongst many other things, that he had not received copies of the bills of indictment (II K 180/00 and II K 280/04) and that the joinder decision of 4 December 2007 had only been served on his lawyer. As regards the proceedings relating to the charges of escaping from lawful custody (case no. II K 280/04) he admitted that he had never asked to be served with a copy of the bill of indictment as he had not been aware that it had been the court’s obligation to provide him with a copy.
22. On 22 January 2010 the Kielce Regional Court amended the judgment and sentenced the applicant to five years’ imprisonment. The court noted that the applicant’s appeal was “very detailed and concerned numerous incidental matters which are not relevant for the judicial review of the judgment that has been appealed against”.
23. On 22 March 2010 the applicant’s lawyer filed a cassation appeal against that judgment. In particular, he alleged a breach of the applicant’s procedural rights because he had not been served with two bills of indictment (II K 180/00 and II K 280/04). He further stressed that in view of the many charges against the applicant, a lack of copies of the bills of indictment meant that the applicant had not been aware of the factual and legal basis of the charges against him. Consequently, he had not been able to prepare an adequate defence. The lawyer noted that the service of the bill of indictment was not just a technical act but involved an accused person’s procedural rights.
24. On 5 May 2010 the Kielce Regional Prosecutor submitted his response to the applicant’s cassation appeal. The prosecutor noted that the applicant had alleged a breach of his procedural rights, but argued that those circumstances had not been relevant for the judicial review of the judgment that had been appealed against.
25. On 12 August 2010 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal. In reply to the applicant’s allegation that his right to defence had been breached, the court referred to the regional prosecutor’s submissions.
B. Relevant domestic law and practice
26. The Code of Criminal Procedure, in so far as relevant, provides:
Article 338
“§ 1. If a bill of indictment complies with the formal requirements, the president of the court shall order that a copy be served on the accused, asking him to file evidentiary submissions within a seven-day period. …
§ 2. The accused shall have the right, within seven days of the service of the bill of indictment, to submit a written response, of which right he should be informed.”
COMPLAINT
27. The applicant complained invoking Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b) that he had not been informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him and consequently had not had an opportunity to organise his defence in an appropriate way.
THE LAW
28. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (a) and (b) of the Convention that he had not been properly informed of the charges against him and could not have organised his defence in an appropriate manner. The relevant provisions read as follows:
“3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
(b) to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence;
…”
A. The parties’ submissions
1. The Government
29. The Government submitted that, having examined the case files, they had not found the relevant postal certificates confirming service of the bills of indictment on the applicant. However, the case file contained postal certificates confirming service of the bills of indictment on the applicant’s lawyer.
30. In the Government’s view, the lack of proof that the applicant had been served with the bills of indictment did not mean that his Convention rights had been violated. Even assuming that a procedural error had indeed occurred and the applicant had not been duly served with the bills of indictment, that did not mean that he had not been informed promptly and in sufficient detail of the nature and cause of the accusation made against him. Firstly, he had already been informed of the charges against him at the investigation stage of the proceedings. Secondly, as admitted by the applicant, his lawyer had been correctly served with all the relevant documents. Thirdly, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bills of indictment had been read out in the courtroom at the beginning of the trial. Fourthly, the applicant had been correctly informed by the prosecutor of the filing of the bills of indictment with the court. Had he not received copies, he could have asked to be allowed to consult the case files.
31. The Government came to the conclusion that the applicant had been fully aware of the nature and cause of the accusations made against him at each stage of the trial and had had adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence. He had been represented by a lawyer throughout the proceedings, who had consulted the case files and who had prepared court pleadings on his behalf.
2. The applicant
32. The applicant maintained that the bills of indictment in cases II K 180/00 and II K 280/04 had never been served on him. This procedural error had not been corrected by the fact that the prosecutor had read the bills of indictment in the courtroom or by the fact that the applicant had been presented with the charges at the investigative stage of the proceedings.
B. The Court’s assessment
33. The Court reiterates that, as it has held many times, the requirements of Article 6 § 3 are to be seen as particular aspects of the right to a fair trial guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 (see, among many other authorities, Sakhnovskiy v. Russia [GC], no. 21272/03, § 94, 2 November 2010, and Schatschaschwili v. Germany [GC], no. 9154/10, § 100, ECHR 2015). The latter is an unqualified right. However, what constitutes a fair trial cannot be the subject of a single unvarying rule but must depend on the circumstances of the particular case. The Court’s primary concern under Article 6 § 1 is to evaluate the overall fairness of the criminal proceedings (see Ibrahim and Others v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos. 50541/08 and 3 others, § 250, 13 September 2016, with further references).
34. Turning to the facts of the present case the Court observes that the applicant alleged that he had not been served with bills of indictment in two cases. The Government acknowledged that the case files did not contain postal certificates confirming that these bills of indictment had indeed been served on the applicant (see paragraph 30 above). At the same time the parties agreed that the applicant was informed about the charges during the investigative stage of the proceedings, that the bills of indictment in question were served on his lawyer and also that they were read out by the prosecutor in the courtroom at the beginning of the trial (see paragraphs 29 and 31 above).
35. The Court reiterates in that respect that Article 6 § 3 (a) does not impose any special formal requirement as to the manner in which the accused is to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against him (see, Pélissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444/94, § 52, ECHR 1999‑II above).
36. In Court observes that as regards the first bill of indictment (case no. II K 180/00), the applicant himself confirmed before the domestic court that he understood all the charges and did not contest them (see paragraph 8 above). With reference to the second bill of indictment, which concerned a charge of escaping lawful custody, it could not be considered complex as regards either the facts or the law. In addition, the applicant admitted in his appeal of 2008 that until that date he had never raised the issue of allegedly not being properly informed about that charge (see paragraph 21 above). Moreover, the applicant did not request the court to allow him additional time to prepare his defence. The Court further observes that the judgment of 26 April 2005 was quashed and the case remitted to the District Court (see paragraph 17 above). However, the applicant did not complain to the District Court that he could not have prepared his defence.
37. The Court further notes that the Regional Court and the Supreme Court thoroughly examined all applicant’s allegations and concluded that the incidental procedural matters he raised had not been relevant for the judicial review of the judgments that had been appealed against (see paragraphs 22 and 25 above). In the Court’s view, the domestic courts’ assessment cannot be regarded as arbitrary or manifestly unreasonable in the circumstances of the present case (see, as a recent example, Moreira Ferreira v. Portugal (no. 2) [GC], no. 19867/12, § 83, 11 July 2017 (extracts)).
38. In those circumstances and given the applicant’s admissions (see paragraph 29 above), the Court considers that the applicant was sufficiently informed of “the nature and cause of the accusation against him”, for the purposes of Article 6 § 3 (a).
39. The Court further observes that the applicant received legal assistance throughout the proceedings. There is nothing in the case file to show that the lawyer representing him did not act correctly or was otherwise inadequate. Moreover, the applicant did not challenge, either before the domestic courts, or before the Court, the quality of the legal services provided to him (contrast with Vasenin v. Russia, no. 48023/06, §§ 142‑47, 21 June 2016).
40. In the light of the above findings, the Court considers that the fairness of the criminal proceedings against the applicant was not irretrievably prejudiced by any shortcomings in the service procedure.
41. It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Declares the application inadmissible.
Done in English and notified in writing on 14 March 2019.
Renata Degener Ksenija Turković
Deputy Registrar President
Leave a Reply