{"id":19960,"date":"2022-10-27T13:34:45","date_gmt":"2022-10-27T13:34:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=19960"},"modified":"2022-10-27T13:34:45","modified_gmt":"2022-10-27T13:34:45","slug":"case-of-russjan-v-poland-european-court-of-human-rights-79509-17","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=19960","title":{"rendered":"CASE OF RUSSJAN v. POLAND (European Court of Human Rights) 79509\/17"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">FIRST SECTION<br \/>\n<strong>CASE OF RUSSJAN v. POLAND<\/strong><br \/>\n<em>(Application no. 79509\/17)<\/em><br \/>\nJUDGMENT<br \/>\nSTRASBOURG<br \/>\n27 October 2022<\/p>\n<p>This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision.<\/p>\n<p><strong>In the case of Russjan v. Poland,<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:<br \/>\nErik Wennerstr\u00f6m, President,<br \/>\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,<br \/>\nLorraine Schembri Orland, judges,<br \/>\nand Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n<p>Having deliberated in private on 6 October 2022,<\/p>\n<p>Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:<\/p>\n<p><strong>PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1. The case originated in an application against Poland lodged with the Court under Article\u00a034 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (\u201cthe Convention\u201d) on 9 November 2017.<\/p>\n<p>2. The applicant was represented by Mr K. Szocik, a lawyer practising in Gda\u0144sk.<\/p>\n<p>3. The Polish Government (\u201cthe\u00a0Government\u201d) were given notice of the application.<\/p>\n<p><strong>THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>4. The applicant\u2019s details and information relevant to the application are set out in the appended table.<\/p>\n<p>5. The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.<\/p>\n<p><strong>THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>I. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>6. The applicant complained that his pre-trial detention had been unreasonably long. He relied on Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention, which reads as follows:<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\">Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03<\/p>\n<p>\u201c3. Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph\u00a01\u00a0(c) of this Article shall be &#8230; entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>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\u00a05 \u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention, have been stated in a number of its previous judgments (see, among many other authorities, Kud\u0142a v.\u00a0Poland [GC], no.\u00a030210\/96, \u00a7 110, ECHR 2000\u2011XI, and McKay v. the United Kingdom [GC], no. 543\/03, \u00a7\u00a7 41-44, ECHR 2006\u2011X, with further references).<\/p>\n<p>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.<\/p>\n<p>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\u2019s pre-trial detention was excessive.<\/p>\n<p>10. These complaints are therefore admissible and disclose a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention.<\/p>\n<p><strong>II. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>11. Article 41 of the Convention provides:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cIf 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.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>12. Regard being had to the documents in its possession and to its case\u2011law (see, in particular, Kauczor, cited above), the Court considers it reasonable to award the sums indicated in the appended table.<\/p>\n<p>13. 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.<\/p>\n<p><strong>FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1. Declares the application admissible;<\/p>\n<p>2. Holds that this application discloses a breach of Article\u00a05\u00a0\u00a7\u00a03 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of pre-trial detention;<\/p>\n<p>3. Holds<\/p>\n<p>(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;<\/p>\n<p>(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.<\/p>\n<p>Done in English, and notified in writing on 27 October 2022, pursuant to Rule\u00a077\u00a0\u00a7\u00a7\u00a02 and\u00a03 of the Rules of Court.<\/p>\n<p>Viktoriya Maradudina\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Erik Wennerstr\u00f6m<br \/>\nActing Deputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n<p>_________<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>APPENDIX<\/strong><br \/>\nApplication raising complaints under Article 5 \u00a7 3 of the Convention<br \/>\n(excessive length of pre-trial detention)<\/p>\n<table>\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"89\"><strong>Application no.<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Date of introduction<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"86\"><strong>Applicant\u2019s name<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>Year of birth<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>\u00a0<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"118\"><strong>Representative\u2019s name and location<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"123\"><strong>Period of detention<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"201\"><strong>Court which issued detention order \/ examined appeal<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"95\"><strong>Length of detention<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"248\"><strong>Specific defects<\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"130\"><strong>Amount awarded for pecuniary and non\u2011pecuniary damage per applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>(in euros)<a href=\"#_ftn1\" name=\"_ftnref1\">[1]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<td width=\"118\"><strong>Amount awarded for costs and expenses per application<\/strong><\/p>\n<p><strong>(in euros)<a href=\"#_ftn2\" name=\"_ftnref2\">[2]<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"89\">79509\/17<\/p>\n<p>09\/11\/2017<\/td>\n<td width=\"86\"><strong>Tomasz Zbigniew RUSSJAN<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>1970<\/td>\n<td width=\"118\">Szocik Krzysztof<\/p>\n<p>Gda\u0144sk<\/td>\n<td width=\"123\">26\/01\/2015<\/p>\n<p>to<\/p>\n<p>17\/01\/2020<\/td>\n<td width=\"201\">the Gda\u0144sk-Po\u0142udnie<\/p>\n<p>District Court;<\/p>\n<p>27\/01\/2015,<\/p>\n<p>case no. X kp 84\/15<\/p>\n<p>(first detention on remand);<\/p>\n<p>the Gda\u0144sk Court of Appeal, 19\/12\/2019,<\/p>\n<p>case no. II AKp 263\/19, (extending the detention and setting the amount of bail)<\/td>\n<td width=\"95\">4 year(s) and 11 month(s) and 23 day(s)<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/td>\n<td width=\"248\">use of assumptions, in the absence of any evidentiary basis, of the risks of absconding or obstructing justice;<\/p>\n<p>failure to examine the possibility, as the case progressed, of applying other measures to secure attendance at the trial;<\/p>\n<p>fragility and repetitiveness of the reasoning employed by the courts, as the case progressed;<\/p>\n<p>failure to conduct the proceedings with due diligence during the period of detention<\/td>\n<td width=\"130\">4,500<\/td>\n<td width=\"118\">250<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref1\" name=\"_ftn1\">[1]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"#_ftnref2\" name=\"_ftn2\">[2]<\/a> Plus any tax that may be chargeable to the applicant.<\/p>\n<div class=\"social-share-buttons\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/sharer\/sharer.php?u=https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=19960\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Facebook<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/intent\/tweet?url=https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=19960&text=CASE+OF+RUSSJAN+v.+POLAND+%28European+Court+of+Human+Rights%29+79509%2F17\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Twitter<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/shareArticle?url=https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=19960&title=CASE+OF+RUSSJAN+v.+POLAND+%28European+Court+of+Human+Rights%29+79509%2F17\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">LinkedIn<\/a><a href=\"https:\/\/pinterest.com\/pin\/create\/button\/?url=https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=19960&description=CASE+OF+RUSSJAN+v.+POLAND+%28European+Court+of+Human+Rights%29+79509%2F17\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Pinterest<\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The applicant complained of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention. FIRST SECTION CASE OF RUSSJAN v. POLAND (Application no. 79509\/17) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 27 October 2022 This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the&hellip;<\/p>\n<p class=\"more-link-p\"><a class=\"more-link\" href=\"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/?p=19960\">Read more &rarr;<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19960","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-available-in-english"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19960","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=19960"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19960\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":19961,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19960\/revisions\/19961"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=19960"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=19960"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/laweuro.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=19960"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}