The present case concerns the allegedly excessive length of the applicant\u2019s detention on remand.<\/p>\n
FIRST SECTION This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n In the case of Zubel v. Poland,<\/strong><\/p>\n The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of: Having regard to:<\/p>\n the application (no.\u00a010932\/18) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 22 February 2018 by a Polish national, Mr Damian Zubel, born in 1975 and living in Koszalin (\u201cthe applicant\u201d) who was represented by Ms M. Kucznier, a lawyer practising in Gda\u0144sk;<\/p>\n the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the allegedly excessive length of the applicant\u2019s detention on remand to the Polish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d), represented by their Agent, Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;<\/p>\n the Government\u2019s observations;<\/p>\n Having deliberated in private on 17 May 2022,<\/p>\n Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. The present case concerns the allegedly excessive length of the applicant\u2019s detention on remand.<\/p>\n 2. On 12 April 2015 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of setting fire to a house belonging to his partner\u2019s parents. On 14 April 2015 the Koszalin District Court (S\u0105d Rejonowy) detained him on remand for three months. The court held that there was a high probability of his having committed the offence of which he was suspected and, in the light of a potentially lengthy prison sentence being imposed, it was possible that he might attempt to obstruct the proceedings. He did not appeal against that decision.<\/p>\n 3. The applicant\u2019s detention was extended by rulings of the Koszalin Regional Court (S\u0105d Okr\u0119gowy) of 7 July, 6 October, 24 November 2015, 22\u00a0January, 1 April and 31 August 2016. The court repeated the same grounds as the District Court for keeping the applicant in detention in all of its decisions.<\/p>\n 4. The bill of indictment was lodged with the Koszalin Regional Court on 22\u00a0March 2016. The applicant was accused of arson and attempted murder.<\/p>\n 5. On 18 October 2016 that court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n 6. On 8 March 2017 the Szczecin Court of Appeal (S\u0105d Apelacyjny) quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case. It found that the identified shortcomings amounted to a gross procedural injustice. In particular, it referred to the fact that a court-appointed expert had a conflict of interests and that there were serious doubts as to his impartiality. It also found that there was no evidence to prove that the applicant had intended to kill anyone. For these reasons, the appellate court ordered that the entire proceedings be repeated.<\/p>\n 7. On 18 April 2017 the Koszalin Regional Court extended the applicant\u2019s detention on remand, relying on the same grounds as previously. On 7 June 2017 the Szczecin Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.<\/p>\n 8. On 22 August 2017 the Koszalin Regional Court again extended the applicant\u2019s detention on remand on the same grounds. On 12 September 2017 the Szczecin Court of Appeal upheld that ruling.<\/p>\n 9. On 22 November 2017 the Koszalin Regional Court conditionally extended the detention on remand for another three months, unless the applicant paid 30,000 Polish zlotys (PLN), (7,500\u00a0euros (EUR)). The applicant complied and was released on 27\u00a0November 2017.<\/p>\n 10. On 25 July 2019 the applicant was convicted of destruction of property and sentenced to three years\u2019 imprisonment, with the total period of his detention on remand (two years, seven months and fourteen days) being considered as time served. He was also ordered to pay PLN\u00a044,000 (EUR\u00a011,000) in compensation to his victims. His lawyer appealed against that judgment on 19 August 2019, and the Koszalin District Prosecutor appealed the following day.<\/p>\n 11. On 23 January 2020 the Szczecin Court of Appeal upheld the first\u2011instance judgment.<\/p>\n 12. The applicant complained under Article 5 \u00a7 3 that the length of his detention on remand had been excessive.<\/p>\n THE COURT\u2019S ASSESSMENT<\/strong><\/p>\n ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 \u00a7 3 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 13. The Court notes that the applicant\u2019s complaint is not manifestly ill\u2011founded within the meaning of Article 35 \u00a7 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible.<\/p>\n 14. The general principles concerning the right to a trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention, have been summarised in Kud\u0142a v. Poland ([GC], no.\u00a030210\/96, \u00a7 110 et seq., ECHR 2000\u2011XI), McKay v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no.\u00a0543\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 41-44, ECHR 2006\u2011X, with further references) and Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC] (no. 23755\/07, \u00a7\u00a7 84-91, 5\u00a0July 2016).<\/p>\n 15. In the present case, the Court observes that the applicant\u2019s detention on remand can be divided into two separate periods for the purpose of assessing its allegedly excessive length under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Piotr Baranowski v. Poland, no. 39742\/05, \u00a7\u00a7\u00a045-46, 2\u00a0October 2007). The first period began on 12 April 2015 when the applicant was arrested and ended on 18 October 2016 when he was convicted by the Koszalin Regional Court. The second period began on 8\u00a0March 2017 when the Szczecin Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and ended on 24 November 2017 when the applicant was released. The total length of the applicant\u2019s detention on remand thus amounted to two\u00a0years, two months and twenty-four days. When extending the applicant\u2019s detention, the domestic courts consistently relied on the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that the applicant would abscond or obstruct the proceedings.<\/p>\n 16. In the instant case, the Government has not provided arguments susceptible to justify the length the applicant\u2019s pre-trial detention throughout the period in question. Having regard to its case-law on the subject, the Court considers that in the instant case the length of the applicant\u2019s detention on remand was excessive.<\/p>\n 17. There has accordingly been a violation of Article\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n 18. The applicant did not submit any claim for just satisfaction or for costs and expenses, despite being invited by the Court to do so. Accordingly, the Court considers that there is no call to award him any sum on that account.<\/p>\n FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n 1. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n 2. Holds that there has been a violation of Article 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 June 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and 3 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n Liv Tigerstedt \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Lorraine Schembri Orland
\nCASE OF ZUBEL v. POLAND<\/strong>
\n(Application no. 10932\/18)<\/em>
\nJUDGMENT
\nSTRASBOURG
\n9 June 2022<\/p>\n
\nLorraine Schembri Orland, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nIoannis Ktistakis, judges,
\nand Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
\nDeputy Registrar \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0President<\/p>\n