CASE OF KURKOWSKI v. POLAND
Remainder inadmissible;No violation of Article 3 - Prohibition of torture (Article 3 - Degrading treatment;Inhuman treatment) (Substantive aspect);No violation of Article 5 - Right to liberty and security (Article 5-3 - Release pending trial;Trial within a reasonable time);Violation of Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life (Article 8-1 - Respect for family life);Non-pecuniary damage - award
George Nicolaou;Ineta Ziemele;Krzysztof Wojtyczek;Ledi Bianku;Päivi Hirvelä;Zdravka Kalaydjieva
5. The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Gdańsk. 6. The applicant was a member of the management board of the Mostostal Gdańsk joint-stock company (“the company”), manufacturing ships and other industrial steel constructions. 7. On 28 November 2002 the Gdańsk District Prosecutor (Prokuratur Rejonowy) opened a criminal investigation into allegations that the company’s management board had intentionally acted to the detriment of the enterprise (celowe działanie na szkodę spółki). 8. On 4 December 2004 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody on reasonable suspicion that he had committed a series of offences related to the running of the company. The court also considered that keeping the applicant in detention was justified by the severity of the penalty which could be imposed if he were convicted and the risk that he might attempt to obstruct the proceedings, especially since the applicant’s and his co-accused’s testimonies had been contradictory. That decision was upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) on 10 January 2005. 9. The applicant’s detention was subsequently extended by decisions of the Gdańsk District Court of 2 March, 1 June and 26 August 2005, which were upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 30 March, 27 June and 19 September 2005 respectively. In their decisions, the domestic 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, the complexity of the case which involved many individuals and the risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings, for example, by inducing witnesses to give false testimony. The domestic courts considered the latter argument particularly relevant in light of the fact that the penalty which the applicant faced was severe. In addition, the domestic courts invoked the difficulties in obtaining evidence, including from abroad, and the need to examine several hundred witnesses and many accounting, tax and auditing experts. On 1 June 2005 the case file already consisted of one hundred volumes. 10. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was further extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Regional Court of 22 December 2005, 23 May and 28 September 2006, which were upheld by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 24 January and 13 June 2006 and a further decision of an unspecified date. 11. On 31 August 2005 and 2 February 2006 two motions for the applicant’s release were rejected. 12. In the meantime, on 18 August 2005 the prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Gdansk District Court against the applicant and eleven other co-accused. The applicant was charged with eleven offences including appropriation of the company’s assets, causing damage to the company and acting to the detriment of the company’s creditors. The prosecutor requested to hear evidence from 30 witnesses and to have read out the testimonies of 552 other witnesses. 13. On 31 August 2005 the District Court requested the Gdansk Court of Appeal to transfer the case to the Gdansk Regional Court due to its complicated nature. On 6 September 2005 the case was remitted to the Gdańsk Regional Court. 14. The first hearing took place on 27 June 2006. 15. The applicant’s detention pending trial was further extended by the first-instance court on 28 September 2006. 16. On 26 October 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court decided to lift the preventive measure and to release the applicant. The court considered that continuing the applicant’s detention was no longer necessary because two of the co-accused, who had initially been detained, had already made their statements and seven of the other co-accused had remained at liberty throughout the proceedings. For these reasons there was no need to keep the applicant in pre-trial detention. 17. It would appear that the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending. 18. On 7 December 2005 the applicant complained of the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him to the Minister of Justice and to the President of the Gdańsk Regional Court. 19. By letters of 18 January and 14 February 2006 the respective authorities rejected the applicant’s complaint as ill-founded. The authorities considered that in the light of the complexity of the case the impugned proceedings had not been lengthy. 20. The applicant did not lodge a complaint under the Law of 17 June 2004 on complaints about a breach of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. 21. The applicant was detained in Gdańsk Remand Centre from 4 December 2004 until 26 October 2006. During this time he was held in six different cells. The size of those cells varied between 6.74 m² and 17 m². The space per person ranged between 2.1 m² and 3.6 m². 22. Between 29 August and 1 September 2005 the applicant was detained in cell number 10, which measured 17 m² and was shared by eight detainees, including the applicant (2.1 m² per person). 23. Between 12 and 15 September 2005, the applicant was held in cell number 18, which measured 5.52 m² and was shared by two detainees, including the applicant (2.6 m² per person). 24. The cells were equipped with separate toilets. 25. The applicant stressed that the conditions of detention in the two person cell were inhuman. He submitted that in each cell there had been a bunk bed (200 cm x 100 cm). However the surface of the toilet had been included in the total surface and constituted part of the 3 m² per person. The design of the cells made it impossible for two prisoners to move around freely. 26. The applicant also claimed that the food served to all detainees was of poor quality and insufficient quantity. He had to buy additional food and despite that he had lost 20 kg during his detention. 27. The Government argued that the applicant had had access to clean sanitary facilities, running water and bathing facilities. The food served to him complied with the relevant standards of the Ministry of Justice. The applicant was afforded a one-hour walk per day. He could have his own television set or he could watch television in the prison’s social room. 28. The list of visits supplied by the Government shows that between 29 December 2004 and 6 July 2006 the applicant received 86 visits, of which 53 were meetings with his defence counsel and 1 meeting with a notary. The remaining 32 visits involved the applicant’s family (wife, daughter and mother). They lasted from 40 (on one occasion) to 120 minutes but on most occasions were 90 minutes long. 29. On 13 March 2006, the authorities rejected the applicant’s request to have an additional visit from his relatives. That decision did not contain any reasoning. 30. On three occasions (27 September 2005, 2 November 2005 and 11 January 2006) the applicant’s contacts with his family were restricted and he was separated from the visitors by a Perspex partition. 31. The applicant, without specifying any details, submitted that, during his pre-trial detention, his correspondence with his family had been monitored and withheld by the authorities. 32. He also submitted that his wife and children had been allowed to visit him in the remand centre only once a month. Most of the applicant’s requests to meet more often with his family had been rejected by the authorities. The applicant’s family members’ visits were short and without the possibility of direct contact. On several occasions he had had no direct contact with his family because he had been separated from them by a Perspex partition and they could communicate with him only by internal phone. 33. Lastly, he denied receiving a visit from a certain E.P. on 6 July 2006. 34. The Government submitted that between 29 December 2004 and 5 October 2006 most of the family visits took place at a table (przy stoliku) in the presence of a guard. Out of the thirty-two visits of the applicant’s wife, mother and youngest child, direct contact was granted on twenty-nine occasions. 35. The Government submitted that in addition to the visits listed above, the applicant received a visit from E.P. on 6 July 2006. 36. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of detention on remand (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing others, 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) and Celejewski v. Poland (no. 17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006). 37. A detailed description of the relevant domestic law and practice concerning general rules governing the conditions of detention in Poland and domestic remedies available to detainees alleging that the conditions of their detention were inadequate are set out in the Court’s pilot judgments given in the cases of Orchowski v. Poland (no. 17885/04) and Norbert Sikorski v. Poland (no. 17599/05) on 22 October 2009 (see §§ 75-85 and §§ 45-88 respectively). More recent developments are described in the Court’s decision in the case of Łatak v. Poland (no. 52070/08 (dec), §§ 25-54, 12 October 2010). 38. Pursuant to Article 217 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences, as applicable until 8 June 2010, a detainee was allowed to receive visitors, provided that he had obtained a visit permission (“zezwolenie na widzenie”) from the authority at whose disposal he remained, i.e. an investigating prosecutor (at the investigative stage) or from the trial court (once the trial had begun) or from the appellate court (in appeal proceedings). A detainee was entitled to 1 onehour long visit per month. 39. According to paragraphs 2 and 3, a visit should take place in the presence of a prison guard in a manner making it impossible for a detainee to have direct contact with a visitor but the authority which issued the permission may set other conditions. In practice, there are 3 types of visits: an “open visit”, a “supervised visit” (widzenie w obecności funkcjonariusza Służby Więziennej) and a “closed visit”. 40. An open visit takes place in a common room designated for visits. Each detainee and his visitors have at their disposal a table at which they may sit together and can have an unrestricted conversation and direct physical contact. Several detainees receive visits at the same time and in the same room. 41. A supervised visit takes place in the same common room but the prison guard is present at the table, controls the course of the visit, may restrict physical contact if so ordered under the visit permission, although his principal role usually is to ensure that the visit is not used for the purposes of obstructing the proceedings or achieving any unlawful aims and to prevent the transferring of any forbidden objects from or to prison. 42. A closed visit takes place in a special room. A detainee is separated from his visitor by a Perspex partition and they communicate through an internal phone. 43. The judgment was given following an application, lodged by the Ombudsman on 2 January 2007, alleging that Article 217 § 1 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences was incompatible with a number of constitutional provisions, including the principle of protection of private and family life (Article 47 of the Constitution), the principle of proportionality (Article 31 § 3 of the Constitution), Article 8 of the Convention and Article 37 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Constitutional Court’s judgment became effective on 8 July 2009, the date of its publication in the Journal of Laws (Dziennik Ustaw). 44. The Constitutional Court ruled that Article 217 § 1, in so far as it did not specify the reasons for refusing family visits to those in pre-trial detention, was incompatible with the above provisions. The court held that this provision did not indicate with sufficient clarity the limitations on a detainee’s constitutional right to protection of private and family life. The court also considered that Article 217 § 1 was incompatible with the Constitution in so far as it did not provide for a possibility to appeal against a prosecutor’s decision to refuse a family visit to those in pre-trial detention. 45. On 5 November 2009 Parliament adopted amendments to Article 217 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences. In particular, subparagraphs 1a-1f were added. These provisions stipulate that a detainee is entitled to at least one family visit per month. In addition, they indicate specific conditions for refusing a family visit to a detainee and provide an appeal procedure against such a refusal. The amendments entered into force on 8 June 2010. 46. The relevant domestic law and practice concerning remedies for excessive length of judicial and enforcement proceedings, in particular the applicable provisions of 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) (“the 2004 Act”) are stated in the Court’s decisions in the cases of Charzyński v. Poland, no. 15212/03 (dec.), §§ 12-23, ECHR 2005-V; and Ratajczyk v. Poland, no. 11215/02 (dec.), ECHR 2005VIII; and in its judgment in the case of Krasuski v. Poland, no. 61444/00, §§ 3446, ECHR 2005-V.