SZUTARSKI proti Polsku

FOURTH SECTION

PARTIAL DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 18532/06
by Karol SZUTARSKI
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,
Mr J. Casadevall,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr S. Pavlovschi,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 April 2006,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Karol Szutarski, is a Polish national who was born in 1977 and lives in Ustka. He is represented before the Court by Mr Z. Kowalski, a lawyer practising in Słupsk.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On 27 May 2002 the applicant was arrested by the police.

On 29 May 2002 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that the applicant, acting in an organised criminal group, had committed an armed robbery.

On 13 August and 14 November 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) further prolonged his detention relying in particular on the risk that a heavy sentence would be imposed, which made it probable that the applicant would interfere with the course of the investigation. Moreover, the complexity of the investigation justified keeping the applicant in detention.

Subsequently, the applicant’s detention on remand was prolonged inter alia on 19 December 2002 and 11 March 2003. The Regional Court reiterated the original grounds given for detention and held that keeping the applicant in custody was necessary for securing the obtaining of evidence.

On 7 May 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny), upon an application from the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy), further prolonged the applicant’s pre‑trial detention. In addition to reiterating the grounds relied on previously, the court considered that the complexity of the case and the large number of co‑accused justified the fear that, if released, the applicant would interfere with the course of the proper conduct of the proceedings.

On 16 June 2003 the applicant and 14 other co-accused were indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court.

On 26 June and 18 December 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s pre‑trial detention. It considered that the severity of the possible sentence justified the fear that, if released, the applicant would attempt to influence witnesses or abscond.

Afterwards, as the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time‑limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Regional Court applied to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) asking for the applicant’s detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On 12 May, 22 September and 28 December 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed the application and prolonged his pre‑trial detention. The court reiterated the grounds given previously.

On 15 November 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court decided to lift the applicant’s detention and to release him on bail of PLN 120,000. The court established that releasing the applicant from detention was justified by the advanced stage of the proceedings as almost all witness had been heard by the trial court and that bail would secure his appearance at the trial.

On 13 April 2006 the applicant lodged a complaint about a breach of the right to have his case heard within a reasonable time. He relied on the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time (Ustawa o skardze na naruszenie prawa strony do rozpoznania sprawy w postępowaniu sądowym bez nieuzasadnionej zwłoki).

On 6 June 2006 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s complaint. The court established that since the indictment the trial court had been acting diligently and speedily, taking into consideration the particular complexity of the proceedings.

On 30 May 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave a judgment. The court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 5 years’ imprisonment. It appears that the applicant requested that the reasoned judgment be served on him with a view to lodging an appeal.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 1 about the decision ordering his detention on remand on 29 May 2002, in particular, that it had not been necessary to impose this preventive measure on him.

2. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention. In particular he argued that the domestic courts had been automatically prolonging the detention and had relied on identical grounds.

3. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 about the unreasonable length of the proceedings.

4. The applicant also complained under Article 8 of the Convention that, before May 2004, no visits from his family had been authorised. Afterwards, monthly visits were allowed; however, the applicant complained that during the visits of his mother, who had hearing difficulties, they had been separated by a glass panel and had to use an interphone. Between 3 June 2004 and 27 July 2005 the applicant had requested to change the visiting regime for his mother’s visits. However, his applications were dismissed.

THE LAW

1. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 5 § 1 of the Convention, complaining about the decision ordering his detention on remand.

However, the Court notes that the applicant was arrested on 27 May 2002 and that his detention on remand was ordered on 29 May 2002 and thus more than six months before the date on which the applicant submitted his application to the Court.

It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

2. The applicant also complained under Articles 5 § 3 and 6 § 1 of the Convention about the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings in his case.

The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of these complaints and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.

3. Finally, the applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his right to respect for his private and family life had been violated in that while he had been detained in the detention centre between 26 June 2003 and May 2004 no visits from his family had been authorised. Afterwards only one visit per month had been allowed. The applicant also complained that between 3 June 2004 and 27 July 2005 he had requested to change the visiting regime for his mother’s visits, during which they had been separated by a glass panel and had to use an interphone; however, his applications were dismissed.

The Court notes that the events complained of by the applicant took place between 26 June 2003 and 27 July 2005, that is more than six months before the date on which the applicant submitted his application to the Court.

It follows that this complaint has been introduced out of time and must be rejected in accordance with Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaints concerning the length of his pre-trial detention and the length of the criminal proceedings;

Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.

T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President