PROCEDURE

The case originated in an application (no. 3252/04) 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 Pakos (“the applicant”), on 12 January 2004.

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

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

On 6 June 2007 the President of the Fourth Section of the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government. It was 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 1962 and lives in Łódź. He is currently detained in the Katowice Remand Centre.

On 15 February 2002 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having been involved in drug trafficking as a member of an organised criminal group.

On 17 February 2002 the Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand until 15 May 2002 in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question. The court considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings given the risk that he might obstruct them. This suspicion was, in the court’s view, justified by the fact that the applicant had been acting in an organised criminal group, “the members of which had not been identified”. The court also stressed the severity of the likely sentence.

The applicant’s detention was repeatedly extended by several decisions of the Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) and the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny). In their decisions, the courts repeatedly relied on the reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged, the serious nature of the offences and the risk that the applicant, as a member of an organised criminal group, would obstruct the investigation.

On 14 December 2004 the prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Katowice Regional Court against the applicant and 32 other co-accused. The prosecutor requested 22 witnesses to be heard.

On 7 December 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal, extending the applicant’s detention for a further three months, noted that the length of the investigation had already been excessive and ordered that, by the end of the extended detention (that is, by 15 March 2006), the Regional Court commence the trial and hear all the defendants in the proceedings.

On an unspecified date the applicant appealed.

On 28 December 2005 the Katowice Court of Appeal confirmed its decision.

It appears that the Katowice Court of Appeal’s instructions were not followed by the Regional Court. After 15 March 2006 the applicant’s detention was extended three more times and the measure has still not been lifted.

On an unspecified date in January 2007 the applicant’s lawyer, relying on the applicant’s state of health and his family situation, requested the court to vary the preventive measure.

On 15 January 2007 the Katowice Regional Court refused the request, again invoking the serious nature of the offences with which the applicant had been charged and the risk that he would obstruct the proceedings. As regards the applicant’s health and his family situation the court found that: “It emerges from the information received from the Katowice Remand Centre’s doctor that the applicant can be treated in detention.... The applicant’s family situation is not so different from the situation of most families where a husband and father is imprisoned. However, the applicant’s wife runs her own business, which secures her and her children a basic income. It is true that the applicant’s apartment has been sold at auction but, in the court’s view, any possible eviction is still a long way off and even then the applicant and his family can obtain alternative accommodation. Lifting the applicant’s detention order would not change the living conditions of his family much.”

The applicant’s detention was further extended by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 4 April, 27 June, 24 October and 28 December 2007 and on 6 February 2008. The applicant appealed against all those decisions, apart from the one given on 24 October 2007, but they were confirmed by the Court of Appeal. In all those decisions the Katowice Court of Appeal relied basically on the same grounds, repeating the arguments relating to the suspicion against the applicant, the serious nature of the offences with which he had been charged, the severity of the penalty to which he was liable and the risk that he might obstruct the proceedings. The suspicion was justified, in the court’s view, by the charge of acting in an organised criminal group.

The applicant is still detained and the proceedings before the first-instance court have not yet been terminated.
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e1
001-90767_a4_em1
CODE
DIRECT
3252/04
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-90767_a4_e2
001-90767_a4_em2
ORG
NO_MASK
Republic of Poland
ETHNIC
insert
001-90767_a4_e3
001-90767_a4_em3
DEM
NO_MASK
Polish national
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e4
001-90767_a4_em4
PERSON
DIRECT
Mr Andrzej Pakos
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e5
001-90767_a4_em5
DATETIME
QUASI
12 January 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e6
001-90767_a4_em6
PERSON
QUASI
Mr B. Piotrowski
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e7
001-90767_a4_em7
LOC
NO_MASK
Katowice
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90767_a4_e8
001-90767_a4_em8
ORG
NO_MASK
Polish Government
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e9
001-90767_a4_em9
PERSON
NO_MASK
Mr J. Wołąsiewicz
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e10
001-90767_a4_em10
ORG
NO_MASK
Minsitry of Foreign Affairs
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e11
001-90767_a4_em11
DATETIME
QUASI
6 June 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e12
001-90767_a4_em12
DATETIME
QUASI
1962
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-90767_a4_e13
001-90767_a4_em13
LOC
QUASI
Łódź
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-90767_a4_e14
001-90767_a4_em14
ORG
QUASI
Katowice Remand Centre
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e15
001-90767_a4_em15
DATETIME
QUASI
15 February 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e16
001-90767_a4_em16
DATETIME
QUASI
17 February 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90767_a4_e17
001-90767_a4_em17
ORG
NO_MASK
Katowice District Court (Sąd Rejonowy)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e18
001-90767_a4_em18
DATETIME
QUASI
15 May 2002
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90767_a4_e19
001-90767_a4_em19
ORG
NO_MASK
Szczecin Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90767_a4_e20
001-90767_a4_em20
ORG
NO_MASK
Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny)
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e21
001-90767_a4_em21
DATETIME
QUASI
14 December 2004
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e22
001-90767_a4_em22
ORG
NO_MASK
Katowice Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90767_a4_e23
001-90767_a4_em23
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
32
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90767_a4_e24
001-90767_a4_em24
QUANTITY
NO_MASK
22
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e25
001-90767_a4_em25
DATETIME
QUASI
7 December 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90767_a4_e26
001-90767_a4_em26
ORG
NO_MASK
Katowice Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e27
001-90767_a4_em27
DATETIME
NO_MASK
three months
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e28
001-90767_a4_em28
DATETIME
QUASI
15 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e29
001-90767_a4_em29
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e30
001-90767_a4_em30
DATETIME
QUASI
28 December 2005
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e26
001-90767_a4_em31
ORG
NO_MASK
Katowice Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e26
001-90767_a4_em32
ORG
NO_MASK
Katowice Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e29
001-90767_a4_em33
ORG
NO_MASK
Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e28
001-90767_a4_em34
DATETIME
QUASI
15 March 2006
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e31
001-90767_a4_em35
DATETIME
NO_MASK
January 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e32
001-90767_a4_em36
DATETIME
QUASI
15 January 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e22
001-90767_a4_em37
ORG
NO_MASK
Katowice Regional Court
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
correct
001-90767_a4_e33
001-90767_a4_em38
ORG
NO_MASK
Katowice Remand Centre’s
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e26
001-90767_a4_em39
ORG
NO_MASK
Katowice Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90767_a4_e34
001-90767_a4_em40
DATETIME
QUASI
4 April, 27 June, 24 October and 28 December 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e35
001-90767_a4_em41
DATETIME
QUASI
6 February 2008
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e36
001-90767_a4_em42
DATETIME
QUASI
24 October 2007
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
insert
001-90767_a4_e37
001-90767_a4_em43
ORG
NO_MASK
Court of Appeal
NOT_CONFIDENTIAL
check
001-90767_a4_e26
001-90767_a4_em44
ORG
NO_MASK
Katowice Court of Appeal
Andrzej Pakos
POL
CHAMBER
Task: Annotate the document to anonymise the following person: Andrzej Pakos