PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 8456/08) 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”) by a Polish national, Mr Andrzej Żurawski (“the applicant”), on 4 February 2008.

The applicant was represented by Mr M. Esnekier, a lawyer practising in Katowice. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant alleged that his detention had exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention.

On 6 October 2008 the President of the Fourth Section decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It also decided to examine the merits of the application at the same time as its admissibility (Article 29 § 3).

THE FACTS

I. THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE

The applicant was born in 1957 and lives in Sosnowiec.

On 20 May 2003 the Regional Prosecutor instituted an investigation into illegal trading in liquid fuel.

On 8 June 2005 the applicant was charged with, inter alia, establishing and leading an organised criminal group engaged in money laundering, illegal trading in liquid fuel and the falsification of tax documents.

On 9 June 2005 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded him in custody, on the basis of reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence in question. It also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, given the risk that he might tamper with evidence. The court also stressed the severity of the anticipated sentence.

The applicant's appeals against decisions prolonging his detention were unsuccessful. In his appeals, he argued that the charges against him were based on unreliable and fabricated evidence. He also relied on his personal circumstances, in particular the need to ensure that his wife, who suffered from psychiatric problems, was cared for.

In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was prolonged on 30 August and 30 November 2005 and 2 March 2006.

Further decisions extending the applicant's detention were taken by the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 19 May, 9 August 2006 and 22 November 2006, 14 February, 16 May, 17 August, 19 September and 19 December 2007.

In all their detention decisions the authorities repeatedly relied on a strong suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, which was supported by evidence from witnesses and experts. They attached importance to the complexity of the case, the significant number of persons involved and the voluminous documentation. They further considered that the need to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings, especially the need to verify evidence from suspects and witnesses, justified holding the applicant in custody. The courts stressed, on several occasions, the applicant's role in the organised criminal group, holding that there was a risk that if released, he would induce witnesses to give false testimony, or otherwise obstruct the proper conduct of the investigation. In one of the decisions dismissing an appeal by the applicant against a decision prolonging his detention, the Court of Appeal noted, that “certain witnesses in principle admitted that they had been instructed [about what to say] in their testimony” and that “the testimony of other witnesses was not consistent with the explanations given by the applicant in the course of the investigation.” It did not, however, specify who had exerted pressure on the witnesses or how they had done so. The courts found no special grounds that would justify lifting the applicant's detention and imposing a less severe measure. In its decisions of 17 August and 19 September 2007 the Katowice Court of Appeal stressed that the investigation had already lasted a long time and urged the prosecutor to draw up a bill of indictment. It also noted, in its decisions of 19 September and 19 December 2007, that the prosecutor's arguments for having the applicant's detention extended had been of a very general nature and instructed the prosecutor to provide a detailed list of tasks that still needed to be completed during the investigation if he wished to have the applicant's detention extended further.

On 27 June 2008 the applicant's pre-trial detention was lifted and he was released.

It appears that the proceedings are still pending.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e1
001-95779_a6_em1
CODE
DIRECT
8456/08
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-95779_a6_e2
001-95779_a6_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Poland
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e2
001-95779_a6_em3
DEM
QUASI
Polish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e3
001-95779_a6_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Andrzej Żurawski
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e4
001-95779_a6_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
4 February 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e5
001-95779_a6_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr M. Esnekier
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e6
001-95779_a6_em7
LOC
QUASI
Katowice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-95779_a6_e2
001-95779_a6_em8
ORG
QUASI
001-95779_a6_em2
Polish
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e7
001-95779_a6_em9
PERSON
QUASI
Mr J. Wołąsiewicz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e8
001-95779_a6_em10
DATETIME
QUASI
6 October 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e9
001-95779_a6_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
1957
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e10
001-95779_a6_em12
LOC
QUASI
Sosnowiec
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e11
001-95779_a6_em13
DATETIME
QUASI
20 May 2003
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e12
001-95779_a6_em14
DATETIME
QUASI
8 June 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e13
001-95779_a6_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
9 June 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e14
001-95779_a6_em16
ORG
QUASI
Katowice District Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-95779_a6_e15
001-95779_a6_em17
ORG
NO_MASK
Sąd Rejonowy
HEALTH
insert
001-95779_a6_e16
001-95779_a6_em18
MISC
NO_MASK
psychiatric problems
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-95779_a6_e17
001-95779_a6_em19
DATETIME
QUASI
30 August and 30 November 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e18
001-95779_a6_em20
DATETIME
QUASI
2 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e19
001-95779_a6_em21
ORG
QUASI
Katowice Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-95779_a6_e20
001-95779_a6_em22
ORG
NO_MASK
Sąd Apelacyjny
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e21
001-95779_a6_em23
DATETIME
QUASI
19 May, 9 August 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e22
001-95779_a6_em24
DATETIME
QUASI
22 November 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-95779_a6_e23
001-95779_a6_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
14 February, 16 May, 17 August, 19 September and 19 December 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e24
001-95779_a6_em26
DATETIME
QUASI
19 September 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e19
001-95779_a6_em27
ORG
QUASI
Katowice Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-95779_a6_e25
001-95779_a6_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
27 June 2008
Andrzej Żurawski
POL
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Andrzej Żurawski