CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 septembre 2010

.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 } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s775766C3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s72F8249F { font-family:Arial; display:none } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; 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 } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s51F2D829 { width:208.44pt; display:inline-block } .s92A1A400 { width:0.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 19495/09 by Roman KOCH against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on   14   September 2010 as a Committee composed of:   Ljiljana Mijović, President,   Ledi Bianku,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 March 2009, Having regard to the declaration submitted by the respondent Government on 24 June 2010 requesting the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Roman Koch, is a Polish national who was born in   1978 and lives in Tomaszów Mazowiecki. 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 The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as   follows. 1.     The applicant's pre-trial detention and criminal proceedings against him On 6 September 2006 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) ordered the applicant's detention pending trial on suspicion of   having committed twenty nine robbery offences. The District Court relied on the fact that the three co-accused and one witness testified against the applicant and incriminated him. The court also relied on the likelihood of   a   severe sentence of imprisonment being imposed on the applicant and the necessity to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings. It is unclear whether the applicant appealed against the decision of   6   September 2006. In the course of the investigation, the applicant's detention was extended several times. In their decisions, the courts relied on the reasons previously given and the likelihood that he had committed the offences with which he   had been charged. On 7 July 2008 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court gave judgment, found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to five years' imprisonment. The applicant remained in detention. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed against the first-instance judgment On 3 February 2009 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) quashed the challenged judgment and remitted the case. On 19 March 2009 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court again extended the applicant's detention relying on the same grounds as   previously. The applicant appealed against this decision. On 29 April 2009 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court upheld the challenged decision. On 10 August 2009 the Tomaszów Mazowiecki District Court extended the applicant's detention until 31 December 2009 holding that the reasons for the detention continued to exist. The court found that only a few witnesses had been heard by that stage and added that, in its view, there was a risk that the applicant might obstruct the proceedings, without, however, specifying any grounds for that fear. On an unspecified date the applicant appealed. On 11 September 2009 the Piotrków Trybunalski Regional Court found the applicant's appeal well-founded, lifted his detention and ordered less severe preventive measure, namely police supervision combined with the seizure of the applicant's passport. The court criticised the quality of the reasoning of the District Court's decision. It found that the period of the applicant's detention had exceeded three years and had become de facto imprisonment. It also pointed to the fact that the detention could not be extended automatically as a result of the excessive length of criminal proceedings. 2.     Censorship of the applicant's correspondence On 14 April 2009 the Court received a letter from the applicant. The envelope bore the following stamp: “Censored on 2 April 2009” (Ocenzurowano dnia 2.04.2009) , an illegible signature and the stamp of   a   guardian (“Kurator zawodowy”) . B.     Relevant domestic law 1.     Preventive measures, including detention during the judicial proceedings The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of   pre ‑ trial detention ( tymczasowe aresztowanie ), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing others , so-called “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 May 2006). 2.     Monitoring of detainee's correspondence The relevant domestic law concerning censorship of detainees' correspondence is set out in the Court's judgment in the case of   Kliza   v.   Poland , no. 8363/04, §§ 29-34, 6 September 2007. For further references concerning the relevant domestic law and practice concerning monitoring of correspondence, see, among other authorities, Lewak v. Poland , no. 21890/03, § 25, 6 September 2007; Kołodziński   v.   Poland , no. 44521/04, § 29, 8 January 2008; Misiak   v.   Poland , no.   43837/06, § 18, 3 June 2008. COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention on remand. In respect of the monitoring of the applicant's correspondence, the Court raised ex officio an issue of a possible breach of Article 8 of the Convention. 2.     The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the principle of presumption of innocence had been violated in his case. THE LAW A.     Length of proceedings and monitoring of the applicant's correspondence The applicant complained about the length of the proceedings. He relied on Article 6 §   1 of the Convention which, in so far as relevant, provides as follows: Article 6 § 1 “In the determination of any criminal charge against him..., everyone is entitled to a ... hearing within a reasonable time by [a] ... tribunal...” The Court, having received the applicant's letter which bore the stamp: “Censored” raised of its own motion a question of a possible breach of Article 8 of the Convention which, in its relevant part, provides as follows: Article 8 § 1 “1.     Everyone has the right to (...) his correspondence.” By letter dated 24 June 2010 the Government informed the Court that they proposed to make a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by this part of the application. They further requested the Court to strike out the application in accordance with Article 37 of the Convention. The declaration provided as follows: “(...) the Government hereby wish to express – by way of a unilateral declaration – their acknowledgement of the fact that the length of the applicant's detention was contrary to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention [was restricted]. Also the right of the applicant to respect for his private life as required by Article 8 of the Convention was restricted by the censorship of the applicant's correspondence. In these circumstances and having regard to the particular facts of the case, the Government declare that they offer to pay the applicant the amount of PLN 8,000 (eight thousand Polish zlotys), which they consider to be reasonable in the light of the Court's case-law in similar cases. The sum referred to above, 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 Convention. 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 the rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default periods plus three percentage points. The Government would respectfully suggest that the above declaration might be accepted by the Court as 'any other reason' justifying the striking out of the case of the Court's list of cases, as referred to in Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. (...) the Government agree in general with the statement of facts prepared by the Registry of the Court. ... the Government's unilateral declaration contains an unconditional acknowledgement that the length of the applicant's pre-trial detention was contrary to Article 5 § 3 of the Convention. The censorship of the applicant's correspondence was contrary to Article 8 of the Convention.” The applicant did not submit any comments as regards the Government's unilateral declaration . The Court recalls that Article 37 of the Convention provides that it may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to one of the conclusions specified under (a), (b) or (c) of paragraph 1 of that Article. Article   37 §   1   (c) enables the Court in particular to strike a case out of its list if: “for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application”. It also recalls that in certain circumstances, it may strike out an application under Article 37 § 1 (c) on the basis of a unilateral declaration by a respondent Government even if the applicant wishes the examination of the case to be continued. To this end, the Court will examine carefully the declaration in the light of the principles emerging from its case-law, in particular the Tahsin Acar judgment ( Tahsin Acar v.   Turkey , [GC], no.   26307/95, §§ 75-77, ECHR   2003-VI); WAZA Spółka z o.o. v. Poland (dec.) no. 11602/02, 26   June   2007; and Sulwińska v. Poland (dec.) no. 28953/03). Having regard to the nature of the admissions contained in the Government's declaration, as well as the amount of compensation proposed – which is consistent with the amounts awarded in similar cases – the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c)). Moreover, in light of the above considerations, and in particular given the clear and extensive case-law on the topic, the Court is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of this part of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). Accordingly, it should be struck out of the list. B.     Complaint under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention The applicant further complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the principle of presumption of innocence had been violated in his case. However, the Court considers that this complaint lacks substantiation. It   follows that it is manifestly ill-founded and must be rejected pursuant to   Article 35 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention.   For these reasons, the Court unanimously   Takes note of the terms of the respondent Government's declaration in   respect of the complaints under Articles 5 § 3 and 8 of the Convention and of the modalities for ensuring compliance with the undertakings referred to therein; Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in so far as it relates to the above complaints in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c) of   the Convention; Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.   Fatoş Aracı   Ljiljana Mijović   Deputy Registrar President