I correctly predicted that there was a violation of human rights in ZUBEL v. POLAND.
Information
- Judgment date: 2022-06-09
- Communication date: 2020-03-24
- Application number(s): 10932/18
- Country: POL
- Relevant ECHR article(s): 5, 5-1-c, 5-3
- Conclusion:
Violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Length of pre-trial detention) - Result: Violation SEE FINAL JUDGMENT
JURI Prediction
- Probability: 0.628691
- Prediction: Violation
Consistent
Legend
Communication text used for prediction
The applicant, Mr Damian Zubel, is a Polish national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Koszalin.
He is represented before the Court by Ms M. Kucznier, a lawyer practising in Gdańsk.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On 12 April 2015 the applicant was arrested by the police, on suspicion of setting fire to a house belonging to his partner’s parents.
It was alleged that, the day before, after consuming a large quantity of alcohol, the applicant had argued with his girlfriend, with whom he lived at the time.
He had become agitated because she had refused to sleep in the same room with him.
He had threatened his girlfriend and her parents, saying that they would regret that moment.
His girlfriend’s mother had allegedly encouraged her daughter to sleep with the applicant in order to end the argument.
After that, the applicant had allegedly ignited the bedsheets with an unknown substance, had jumped out of the window and had gone to his neighbour’s house to continue drinking.
Upon entering his neighbour’s house he had immediately said what he had just done and the neighbour had alerted the family about the fire, which was extinguished by firemen.
The applicant had been apprehended on site and was subsequently charged with arson and attempted murder.
The case was joined with an investigation into the applicant driving a car under the influence of alcohol two months earlier.
On 14 April 2015 the Koszalin District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) placed the applicant in detention on remand for three months.
The court reasoned that there was a high suspicion of the applicant’s guilt and, in the light of a potentially lengthy prison sentence being imposed, it was possible that the applicant might attempt to obstruct proceedings.
The detention on remand had subsequently been extended every three months by the Koszalin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy).
On 10 February 2016 the court dismissed an interlocutory appeal (zażalenie) lodged by the applicant’s lawyer.
When extending the detention on remand, the court relied on the fact that the applicant was in a relationship with one of the victims, knew her family and thus could have attempted to influence their testimonies had he been set free.
Moreover, the court referred to the fact that the applicant had failed to appear for questioning in the case concerning him driving under the influence of alcohol, which further substantiated the risk of obstruction of justice.
The bill of indictment was lodged by the Koszalin District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy) on 21 March 2016 with the Koszalin Regional Court.
The applicant was charged with arson and attempted murder.
The bill of indictment also contained charges of an assault on a public official (police officer), obstruction of an official activity and criminal threats.
The latter charges were apparently heard in a separate set of proceedings, whose outcome is unknown.
The first hearing took place on 31 August 2016.
On 18 October 2016 the applicant was convicted of arson and attempted murder and sentenced to twelve years in prison.
On 10 January 2017 the Szczecin Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) extended the applicant’s detention on remand for another three months.
On 2 February 2017 it dismissed an interlocutory appeal lodged by the applicant’s lawyer.
On 8 March 2017 the same court quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
It found that the identified shortcomings amounted to a gross procedural injustice.
In particular, it relied on the fact that the court‐appointed fire marshal (biegły z zakresu pożarnictwa) had a conflict of interest and 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.
On 10 March 2017 the applicant’s lawyer requested the detention on remand be lifted.
Her request was dismissed and as the court had found that the proceedings had to be repeated in their entirety there was an increased risk of obstruction of justice.
Finally, 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 euros (EUR)).
The applicant complied and was released on 27 November 2017.
He was ordered to report regularly to a police station and was prohibited from approaching and/or contacting the victims.
On 25 July 2019 he was convicted of destruction of property and sentenced to three years in prison, with the 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 44,000 (EUR 11,000) in pecuniary compensation to his victims.
His lawyer appealed against that judgment on 19 August 2019, and the Koszalin District Prosecutor appealed the following day.
The appellate proceedings are pending before the Szczecin Court of Appeal.
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other so-called “preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze) are set out in the Court’s judgments in the cases of Gołek v. Poland (no.
31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006); Celejewski v. Poland (no.
17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006); and Kauczor v. Poland (no.
45219/06, § 25-33, 3 February 2009).
COMPLAINT The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand, which lasted for two years, two months and twenty-four days (excluding the period following the applicant’s initial conviction).
Judgment
FIRST SECTIONCASE OF ZUBEL v. POLAND
(Application no. 10932/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 June 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zubel v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 10932/18) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 22 February 2018 by a Polish national, Mr Damian Zubel, born in 1975 and living in Koszalin (“the applicant”) who was represented by Ms M. Kucznier, a lawyer practising in Gdańsk;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the allegedly excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand to the Polish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the Government’s observations;
Having deliberated in private on 17 May 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present case concerns the allegedly excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand. 2. On 12 April 2015 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of setting fire to a house belonging to his partner’s parents. On 14 April 2015 the Koszalin District Court (Sąd 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. 3. The applicant’s detention was extended by rulings of the Koszalin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) of 7 July, 6 October, 24 November 2015, 22 January, 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. 4. The bill of indictment was lodged with the Koszalin Regional Court on 22 March 2016. The applicant was accused of arson and attempted murder. 5. On 18 October 2016 that court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. 6. On 8 March 2017 the Szczecin Court of Appeal (Sąd 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. 7. On 18 April 2017 the Koszalin Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand, relying on the same grounds as previously. On 7 June 2017 the Szczecin Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. 8. On 22 August 2017 the Koszalin Regional Court again extended the applicant’s detention on remand on the same grounds. On 12 September 2017 the Szczecin Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. 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 euros (EUR)). The applicant complied and was released on 27 November 2017. 10. On 25 July 2019 the applicant was convicted of destruction of property and sentenced to three years’ 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 44,000 (EUR 11,000) in compensation to his victims. His lawyer appealed against that judgment on 19 August 2019, and the Koszalin District Prosecutor appealed the following day. 11. On 23 January 2020 the Szczecin Court of Appeal upheld the first‐instance judgment. 12. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 that the length of his detention on remand had been excessive. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
13. The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint is not manifestly ill‐founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 14. The general principles concerning the right to a trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been summarised in Kudła v. Poland ([GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq., ECHR 2000‐XI), McKay v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‐X, with further references) and Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC] (no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 5 July 2016). 15. In the present case, the Court observes that the applicant’s detention on remand can be divided into two separate periods for the purpose of assessing its allegedly excessive length under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Piotr Baranowski v. Poland, no. 39742/05, §§ 45-46, 2 October 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 March 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’s detention on remand thus amounted to two years, two months and twenty-four days. When extending the applicant’s detention, the domestic courts consistently relied on the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that the applicant would abscond or obstruct the proceedings. 16. In the instant case, the Government has not provided arguments susceptible to justify the length the applicant’s 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’s detention on remand was excessive. 17. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 June 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Lorraine Schembri Orland Deputy Registrar President
FIRST SECTION
CASE OF ZUBEL v. POLAND
(Application no. 10932/18)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG
9 June 2022
This judgment is final but it may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Zubel v. Poland,
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting as a Committee composed of:
Lorraine Schembri Orland, President, Krzysztof Wojtyczek, Ioannis Ktistakis, judges,and Liv Tigerstedt, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the application (no. 10932/18) against the Republic of Poland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 22 February 2018 by a Polish national, Mr Damian Zubel, born in 1975 and living in Koszalin (“the applicant”) who was represented by Ms M. Kucznier, a lawyer practising in Gdańsk;
the decision to give notice of the complaint concerning the allegedly excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand to the Polish Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and to declare inadmissible the remainder of the application;
the Government’s observations;
Having deliberated in private on 17 May 2022,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
1. The present case concerns the allegedly excessive length of the applicant’s detention on remand. 2. On 12 April 2015 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of setting fire to a house belonging to his partner’s parents. On 14 April 2015 the Koszalin District Court (Sąd 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. 3. The applicant’s detention was extended by rulings of the Koszalin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) of 7 July, 6 October, 24 November 2015, 22 January, 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. 4. The bill of indictment was lodged with the Koszalin Regional Court on 22 March 2016. The applicant was accused of arson and attempted murder. 5. On 18 October 2016 that court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twelve years’ imprisonment. 6. On 8 March 2017 the Szczecin Court of Appeal (Sąd 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. 7. On 18 April 2017 the Koszalin Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention on remand, relying on the same grounds as previously. On 7 June 2017 the Szczecin Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. 8. On 22 August 2017 the Koszalin Regional Court again extended the applicant’s detention on remand on the same grounds. On 12 September 2017 the Szczecin Court of Appeal upheld that ruling. 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 euros (EUR)). The applicant complied and was released on 27 November 2017. 10. On 25 July 2019 the applicant was convicted of destruction of property and sentenced to three years’ 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 44,000 (EUR 11,000) in compensation to his victims. His lawyer appealed against that judgment on 19 August 2019, and the Koszalin District Prosecutor appealed the following day. 11. On 23 January 2020 the Szczecin Court of Appeal upheld the first‐instance judgment. 12. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 that the length of his detention on remand had been excessive. THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT
ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5 § 3 OF THE CONVENTION
13. The Court notes that the applicant’s complaint is not manifestly ill‐founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention or inadmissible on any other grounds. It must therefore be declared admissible. 14. The general principles concerning the right to a trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial, as guaranteed by Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, have been summarised in Kudła v. Poland ([GC], no. 30210/96, § 110 et seq., ECHR 2000‐XI), McKay v. the United Kingdom ([GC], no. 543/03, §§ 41-44, ECHR 2006‐X, with further references) and Buzadji v. the Republic of Moldova [GC] (no. 23755/07, §§ 84-91, 5 July 2016). 15. In the present case, the Court observes that the applicant’s detention on remand can be divided into two separate periods for the purpose of assessing its allegedly excessive length under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis, Piotr Baranowski v. Poland, no. 39742/05, §§ 45-46, 2 October 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 March 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’s detention on remand thus amounted to two years, two months and twenty-four days. When extending the applicant’s detention, the domestic courts consistently relied on the gravity of the charges and the likelihood that the applicant would abscond or obstruct the proceedings. 16. In the instant case, the Government has not provided arguments susceptible to justify the length the applicant’s 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’s detention on remand was excessive. 17. There has accordingly been a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. APPLICATION OF ARTICLE 41 OF THE CONVENTION
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. FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT, UNANIMOUSLY,
Done in English, and notified in writing on 9 June 2022, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court. Liv Tigerstedt Lorraine Schembri Orland Deputy Registrar President