CASE OF PINKOWSKI v. POLAND
No violation of P1-3
David Thór Björgvinsson;Giovanni Bonello;Lech Garlicki;Ledi Bianku;Mihai Poalelungi;Nicolas Bratza
5. The applicant, Mr Mariusz Pińkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Częstochowa. 6. On 9 March 2000 the Częstochowa Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Okręgowy) charged the applicant with being an accomplice to an armed robbery and murder in France. 7. On the same date the Częstochowa District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody. The court justified its decision by the strong evidence against the applicant, the likelihood of a severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on him if convicted and the risk that he might obstruct the proceedings. 8. On an unspecified date the applicant was charged with being an accomplice to an armed robbery, murder, false imprisonment and being a member of an organised criminal gang (no. II K 55/01). All the offences in question were alleged to have taken place in France. 9. Subsequently, on 25 May 2001 the applicant was charged with being an accomplice to an armed robbery and with the imprisonment, torture and murder of a certain A.T., and with being a member of an organised criminal gang in France. 10. On 18 June 2001 the bill of indictment was lodged with the Częstochowa Regional Court. 11. The applicant's pre-trial detention was extended by the decision of the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) of 28 August 2000 (upheld by the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy) on 2 October 2000) and the decisions of the Katowice Regional Court of 14 February, 28 June and 29 November 2001 (upheld by the Katowice Court of Appeal on 14 March, 22 August and 20 December 2001, respectively). 12. The courts referred to the original grounds for the applicant's detention and, additionally, to the international dimension of the case. 13. Meanwhile, on 1 March 2002 the Nowy Sącz Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to twenty-five years' imprisonment. The reports obtained from Polish and French forensic experts in the course of the proceedings were contradictory as regards the cause of the victim's death. However, relying on the witness testimony and other evidence, the court established that the victim had died not as a result of asphyxia (when the applicant, acting together with accomplices, strangled him with a wire and put tape around his face) as claimed by some experts but as a result of being shot by the applicant in a forest where the applicant had possibly buried him with the aid of the gang. 14. On 3 October 2002 the Kraków Court of Appeal quashed the above judgment and remitted the case to the prosecution for further investigation, with a view to eliminating the major discrepancies in the evidence obtained. 15. On 21 November 2003 the Częstochowa Regional Prosecutor issued a new decision charging the applicant with, among other offences, attempting to kill A.T. by strangling him and then hiding the body. The supplementary investigation revealed that the victim had died as a result of numerous wounds inflicted on him. In addition, the applicant was found to have incited and led the other accomplices, acting on orders from a certain R.S. All the offences in question were alleged to have taken place in France. 16. Meanwhile, the preventive measure was upheld by decisions of the Kraków Court of Appeal of 21 February, 21 August, 3 October and 31 December 2002, and 26 March, 24 September and 16 December 2003. 17. Subsequently the applicant's pre-trial detention was extended by the trial court, the Nowy Sącz Regional Court, in its decisions of 29 June and 15 November 2004 and of 29 March and 19 August 2005 (upheld by the Kraków Court of Appeal on 22 July and 9 December 2004 and on 4 May and 14 September 2005, respectively). 18. The courts reiterated the original grounds for the applicant's pre-trial detention. In addition, although they acknowledged the fact that the investigation had been lengthy, the domestic courts considered it justified in the light of the international character of the case and the fact that certain witnesses had to be examined with the aid of the French authorities. 19. On an unspecified date in early-2004 a new bill of indictment was lodged by the prosecutor (no. II K 8/04) and the case was sent to the Nowy Sącz Regional Court. 20. From 17 May 2004 until 18 November 2005 the trial court held thirteen hearings. The court examined a French witness and obtained a forensic report from a French expert. The case file comprised twenty-three volumes in Polish and twenty-nine volumes in French. 21. On 18 November 2005 the Nowy Sącz Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to fifteen years' imprisonment. That term was reduced by the period which the applicant had already spent in pre-trial detention, from 11 March 2000 until 27 March 2001 and from 14 January 2003 until 18 November 2005. 22. On 8 March 2006 the Kraków Court of Appeal acquitted the applicant of inciting and commanding the other accomplices and upheld the remainder of the first-instance judgment. 23. On 15 February 2007 the Supreme Court dismissed the cassation appeals lodged by the defence lawyers. 24. In parallel to his pre-trial detention which is the subject of the instant application, the applicant served two separate prison sentences. Between 22 April and 31 July 2002 the applicant was serving a sentence of 100 days imposed on him by a judgment of the Częstochowa District Court of an unspecified date (no. III K 1554/98). On 31 July 2002 he started serving a sentence of twelve years' imprisonment, which was imposed on him by a judgment of the Nowy Sącz Regional Court of an unspecified date (no. II K 14/06). 25. During his pre-trial detention, the applicant was first held in the Nowy Sącz Prison and later in Częstochowa Remand Centre. 26. On 14 November 2001 the Penitentiary Commission of Nowy Sącz Prison (Komisja Penitencjarna) classified him as a “dangerous detainee” (“N”). That decision was based on the information about the applicant obtained from the trial court, namely that he had been suspected of a cruel crime committed while acting in an organised criminal gang. 27. On 8 May 2003 that decision was lifted by the Penitentiary Commission of Częstochowa Remand Centre. 28. The applicant did not submit any details about the conditions of his detention under the “N” regime. 29. It appears that on 19 December 2007 the applicant was released on parole. 30. The applicant did not complain about the length of the proceedings under the Act 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) (“the 2004 Act”). 31. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre-trial detention (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called “preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze) are summarised in several judgments concerning similar cases (see, among others, Kauczor v. Poland, no. 45219/06, §§25-27, 3 February 2009; Gołek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006; Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 August 2006). 32. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of the above-mentioned 2004 Act, are stated in the Court's decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 1223, ECHR 2005-V and Ratajczyk v. Poland no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005-VIII, and its judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 34-46, ECHR 2005-V.