CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 décembre 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s52DA829 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; display:none } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s37CDBE05 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .sC2C80E1C { width:180.76pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 23170/07 by Grzegorz CHARCHALIS against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on   9   December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 May 2007, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Grzegorz Charchalis, is a Polish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Dzierzgoń. The Polish Government (“the   Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of   the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case On an unspecified date the Bydgoszcz District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) issued a “wanted” notice in respect of the applicant in view of   the   reasonable suspicion that he had committed an offence and that   he   had been hiding from the police. The court decided to detain the   applicant on remand for a period of 7 days from the date of his arrest. On 12 October 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 19   October 2001 and 3 January 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) prolonged the applicant’s detention. The court considered that the applicant’s detention was necessary to secure the proper course of   the investigation. It also relied on the risk that a severe sentence might be   imposed on the applicant. On 11 April 2002 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention. In addition to the grounds given previously the court pointed to   the fact that prior to his arrest the applicant was in hiding and had used another person’s identity document. On an unspecified later date the applicant was indicted on the charge of having committed 93 offences of fraud in that between November 1998 and March 1999 he had forged 93 cheques. The applicant’s detention was prolonged at the hearings held on   28   August and 15 November 2002. In its identically reasoned decisions the trial court considered that the grounds for his detention remained valid. On 30 June 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 6 years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed against the judgment. On 4 December 2003 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the impugned judgment and remitted the case. On 22 December 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court prolonged the   applicant’s detention basing its decision on the reasonable suspicion against the applicant. The applicant’s detention was then prolonged on 12 March, 8 June, 21   July and 9 September 2004 and 24 January 2005. In almost identically reasoned decisions the court reiterated the grounds for the applicant’s detention given on previous occasions. Subsequently, the applicant’s detention was prolonged on 15 April, 21   July and 21 October 2005. In addition to the probability that a severe sentence would be imposed on the applicant, in one of those decisions the   trial court indicated the need to obtain a further expert opinion. On 13 December 2005 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 6 years’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. The Gdańsk Court of Appeal held one hearing on 6 April 2006 and on   the same date it gave its judgment. The court quashed the applicant’s conviction and remitted the case. The applicant’s detention was prolonged by the trial court on 13 June, 14   September, 31 October and 21 November 2006. The applicant’s pre-trial detention was then prolonged on 29 January, 27   March, 24 April, 11 June and 29 June 2007. On each occasion the trial court relied on the risk that a severe sentence might be imposed on   the   applicant, which made it probable that he would interfere with the   proper course of the proceedings. On 29 June 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 6 years’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged an appeal against the judgment. On 23 October 2007 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment. It appears that the judgment is final. On 26 March 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted and sentenced the applicant in another set of criminal proceedings to two years’ imprisonment. It appears that the applicant served this sentence from 11   August 2003 to 11 August 2005. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning pre ‑ trial detention ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other preventive measures (ś rodki 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   August   2006. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Articles 5   §   3 and 6   §   1 of   the   Convention about the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention and of the criminal proceedings against him. He complained that the courts had prolonged his detention in an automatic manner. THE LAW On 28 October 2008 the Court received the following declaration from   the Government: “I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 10,500 (ten thousand five hundred Polish zlotys) to Mr Grzegorz Charchalis with a view to securing a   friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37   § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at   a   rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the   default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case.” On 7 November 2008 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant: “I note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of   PLN   10,500 (ten thousand five hundred Polish zlotys) with a view to securing a   friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights. This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be free of any taxes that may be applicable. It will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37   § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the   expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of   the   European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of   the   facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case.” The Court takes note of the friendly settlement reached between the   parties. It is satisfied that the settlement is based on respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols and finds no reasons to   justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.         Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President