FIRST SECTION
\nDECISION<\/p>\n
Application no. 60347\/10
\nSebastian RUDZIS
\nagainst Poland<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26\u00a0March 2019 as a Committee composed of:<\/p>\n
Ksenija Turkovi\u0107, President,
\nKrzysztof Wojtyczek,
\nArmen Harutyunyan, judges,
\nand Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 October 2010,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
THE FACTS<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr Sebastian Rudzis, is a Polish national, who was born in 1974 and is detained in Krzywaniec Prison.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Polish Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.<\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Criminal proceedings against the applicant<\/strong><\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 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.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On 2 September 2009 the prosecutor ordered seizure of money found during a search at the applicant\u2019s 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\u2019s 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\u2019s orders.<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0The charges against the applicant were supplemented on three occasions between March and June 2010.<\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0On 30 June 2010 the applicant was indicted before the ZielonaG\u00f3ra 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.<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0The 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 Pozna\u0144 Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant\u2019s appeals against the extensions of his detention.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 16 October 2012 the ZielonaG\u00f3ra Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to six years\u2019 and six months\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant and the prosecutor appealed against the judgment.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0On 19 September 2013 the Pozna\u0144 Court of Appeal partly upheld the judgment and partly amended it. The judgment is final.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Proceedings under the 2004 Act<\/strong><\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u00a0post\u0119powaniuprzygotowawczymprowadzonymlubnadzorowanymprzezprokuratoraipost\u0119powanius\u0105dowym bez nieuzasadnionejzw\u0142oki – \u201cthe 2004 Act\u201d).<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 May 2010 the Pozna\u0144 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.<\/p>\n COMPLAINT<\/strong><\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant complained under Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of criminal proceedings.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n A.\u00a0\u00a0Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 15.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant\u2019s complaint concerned unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings. He relied on Article 6 \u00a7 1 of the Convention, which in so far as relevant, provides:<\/p>\n \u201cIn the determination of … any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a … hearing within a reasonable time by [a] … tribunal …\u201d<\/p>\n 16.\u00a0\u00a0The Government made a preliminary objection of non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies under Article 35 \u00a7 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.<\/p>\n 17.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant in general asked the Court to give a ruling in his case. He did not comment on the Government\u2019s objection or on the admissibility and merits of the case.<\/p>\n 18.\u00a0\u00a0The Court does not find it necessary to examine the Government\u2019s objection of non-exhaustion of the domestic remedies, the present case being in any event manifestly ill-founded, for the following reasons.<\/p>\n 19.\u00a0\u00a0The 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, P\u00e9lissier and Sassi v. France [GC], no. 25444\/94, \u00a7\u00a067, ECHR\u00a01999-II, and Ku\u015bmierek v. Poland, no. 10675\/02, \u00a7 62, 21 September 2004).<\/p>\n 20.\u00a0\u00a0The 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.<\/p>\n 21.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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).<\/p>\n 22.\u00a0\u00a0As to the conduct of the authorities, the Court first observes that the investigation against the applicant lasted from his arrest on 24\u00a0February 2009 to 30 June 2010, when the bill of indictment was submitted to the Pozna\u0144 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\u00a0paragraph 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 Pozna\u0144 Regional Court, which dismissed the applicant\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n 23.\u00a0\u00a0The 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\u2019s 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 \u201creasonable time\u201d principle.<\/p>\n 24.\u00a0\u00a0Having 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 \u00a7\u00a7 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n B.\u00a0\u00a0Article 13 of the Convention<\/strong><\/p>\n 25.\u00a0\u00a0The Court raised of its own motion an issue under Article 13 of the Convention, in that the applicant had no effective domestic remedy in\u00a0respect of the protracted length of proceedings in his case. Article 13 reads:<\/p>\n \u201cEveryone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in [the] Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the\u00a0violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.\u201d<\/p>\n 26.\u00a0\u00a0The Government contested a breach of this provision of the Convention. The applicant did not comment on this issue.<\/p>\n 27.\u00a0\u00a0The Court reiterates that Article 13 guarantees an effective remedy before a national authority for an alleged breach of the requirement under Article 6 \u00a7 1 to hear a case within a reasonable time. However, the \u201ceffectiveness\u201d of a \u201cremedy\u201d within the meaning of that provision does not depend on the certainty of a favourable outcome for the applicant (see\u00a0Kud\u0142a v. Poland[GC], no. 30210\/96, \u00a7\u00a7 154 et seq., ECHR 2000-XI).<\/p>\n 28.\u00a0\u00a0The Court further reiterates that the word \u201cremedy\u201d 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,\u0160idlov\u00e1 v. Slovakia, no.\u00a050224\/99, \u00a7 77, 26 September 2006,Figiel v. Poland (no.\u00a02), no.\u00a038206\/05, \u00a7 33, 16September 2008, and Baszczy\u0144ski v. Poland (dec.), no.\u00a077103\/13, \u00a7 51, 12December 2017).<\/p>\n 29.\u00a0\u00a0Having regard to its finding in respect of Article 6 \u00a7 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\u2011founded and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 \u00a7\u00a7 3 and 4 of the Convention.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Declares the application inadmissible.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 18 April 2019.<\/p>\n RenataDegener\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 KsenijaTurkovi\u0107
\nDeputyRegistrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\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