CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 16 janvier 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sF8CBFB54 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:108pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s378CCDDB { margin-top:108pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6477A72F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sE5338F84 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sEE18EE45 { width:48.95pt; display:inline-block } .sEA2FDF23 { width:197.32pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }       FOURTH SECTION PARTIAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 7676/06 by Janusz KOPIJ against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16   January 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 February 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Janusz Kopij, is a Polish national who was born in 1953 and is presently detained in Gdańsk, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 22 May 2002 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 23 May 2002 the Gdańsk District Court decided to detain the applicant on remand in view of the reasonable suspicion that the applicant, acting in an organised criminal group, had committed an armed robbery. On 13 August and 14 November 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) further prolonged his detention relying in particular on the risk that a heavy sentence would be imposed, which made it probable that the applicant would interfere with the course of the investigation. Moreover, the complexity of the investigation justified keeping the applicant in detention. Subsequently, the applicant’s detention on remand was prolonged inter alia on 19 December 2002 and 11 March 2003. The Regional Court reiterated the original grounds given for his detention and held that keeping the applicant in custody was necessary for securing the obtaining of evidence. On 7 May 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ), upon an application from the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor ( Prokurator Okręgowy ), further prolonged the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention. In addition to reiterating the grounds relied on previously, the court considered that the complexity of the case and the large number of co ‑ accused justified the fear that, if released, the applicant would interfere with the course of the proper conduct of the proceedings. On 16 June 2003 the applicant and 14 other co-accused were indicted before the Gdańsk Regional Court. On 26 June and 18 December 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s pre ‑ trial detention. It considered that the severity of the possible sentence justified the fear that, if released, the applicant would attempt to influence witnesses or abscond. Afterwards, as the length of the applicant’s detention had reached the statutory time ‑ limit of 2 years laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ( Kodeks postępowania karnego ), the Regional Court applied to the Gdańsk Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) asking for the applicant’s detention to be prolonged beyond that term. On 12   May, 22   September and 28 December 2004 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal allowed the application and prolonged his pre ‑ trial detention. The court reiterated the grounds given previously. On 14 June and 22 November 2005 the applicant’s detention was further prolonged. The court observed that the period of detention had not been excessive given the complexity of the case and the need to secure the proper course of the final stages of the trial. On 27 February 2006 the applicant’s detention was further prolonged. The applicant’s numerous applications for release and appeals against the decisions prolonging his detention were to no avail. On 30 May 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court gave a judgment convicting the applicant. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complained about the unreasonable length of his detention on remand. He relied on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention 2.     In addition he complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the proceedings in that the bill of indictment against him had been unjustified. THE LAW 1.     The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his pre ‑ trial detention. The Court considers that it cannot, on the basis of the case file, determine the admissibility of this complaint and that it is therefore necessary, in accordance with Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of this part of the application to the respondent Government.   2.     He further complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had not had a “fair trial”. However, pursuant to Article 35 § 1 of the Convention: “The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law...” The Court notes that the judgment of the Gdańsk Regional Court is not final and that it is open to the applicant to lodge an appeal with the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, the applicant still can, and should, put the substance of the complaint before the domestic authorities and ask for appropriate relief. It follows that this complaint must be rejected under Article   35 §§   1 and   4 of the Convention for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to adjourn the examination of the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of his pre-trial detention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   T.L. Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President