CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 25 mai 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .sE485344B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:28.6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.6pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s67D5986A { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; font-weight:bold; vertical-align:super; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85646119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:12pt } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } Published on 14 June 2021   FIRST SECTION Application no. 52089/18 Elżbieta MARCINIAK against Poland lodged on 30 October 2018 communicated on 25 May 2021 STATEMENT OF FACTS The applicant, Ms Elżbieta Marciniak, is a Polish national who was born in 1966 and lives in Płock. She is represented before the Court by Mr   A.   Pietryka, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. On 5 December 2016 the applicant was arrested by the Łódź Provincial Prosecutor’s Office ( Prokuratura Regionalna w Łodzi ), on a charge of being a leader of an organised criminal group committing, inter alia, fraud, money laundering and tax evasion. The crimes were related to the activities of a certain limited liability company. The case was reported by local media. On 7 December 2016 the Łódź-Śródmieście District Court ( Sąd   Rejonowy dla Łodzi-Śródmieścia ) ordered that the applicant be detained on remand for three months in view of the reasonable suspicion that she had committed the offences in question. The court also relied on the likelihood that the applicant might try to obstruct the proper course of the proceedings, because she was facing a severe penalty, she refused to plead guilty and she had committed the offences together with other persons. Following an appeal by the applicant, on 13 January 2017 the Łódź Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) upheld that decision. The applicant’s detention on remand was extended on 28 February 2017 by the Łódź Regional Court. The court repeated the arguments used in the previous decision. The applicant did not file an appeal. According to her submissions, she decided to cooperate with the prosecutor, hoping for an extraordinary mitigation of her penalty. Despite the fact that she had pleaded guilty and provided the prosecutor with a list of persons involved in the activities of the organised criminal group, another application for the extension of her detention was filed. The prosecutor argued that the detention was necessary, as the applicant’s testimony needed to be verified and it was essential to question the remaining members of the organised criminal group and to secure the existing documents related to the operations of the companies that were managed by the applicant. On 30 May and 29 August 2017 the Łódź Regional Court extended the applicant’s detention and stated that, because she was charged with managing an organised criminal group and she had previously taken measures to pressure witnesses, there was a serious risk that she might obstruct the proceedings. The applicant did not appeal against those decisions. At the hearings held on 22 November 2017 and 21 February 2018 the applicant’s lawyers requested her release on bail of PLN 500,000 (approximately EUR 125,000) and PLN 2,500,000 (EUR 625,000) respectively. Those requests were dismissed and the detention on remand was extended by the Łódź Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) (decisions of 22 November 2017 and 21 February 2018). The court referred to the fact that the applicant faced a severe penalty and that the risk of obstruction of the proceedings was significant as the applicant had tried to pressure witnesses. The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against both the decisions. Subsequently, the Łódź Court of Appeal extended the applicant’s detention several times and afterwards, acting as a court of second instance, dismissed her appeals. The dates of the decisions are set out in the table below:   Date of decision to extend the detention Date of dismissal of the applicant’s appeal Time elapsed between the 1 st and 2 nd instance decision 10 May 2018 13 June 2018 34 days 10 July 2018 21 August 2018 43 days 4 October 2018 14 November 2018 41 days 28 December 2018 20 February 2019 54 days 3 April 2019 22 May 2019 49 days   The court recognised that the applicant had been detained for a long time, but stated that the measure was necessary in view of the complexity of the investigation (the case-file consisted of over 300 volumes) and the high likelihood that the applicant, if released, would attempt to obstruct the proceedings. On 24 June 2019 the Łódź Provincial Prosecutor’s Office released the applicant on bail. The amount of bail was PLN 800,000 (EUR 200,000). The applicant was additionally placed under police supervision, prohibited from leaving the country and her passport was seized. Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning detention on remand ( tymczasowe aresztowanie ), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other 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); Celejewski v.   Poland (no.   17584/04, §§ 22-23, 4 May 2006), and Kauczor v.   Poland (no.   45219/06, §§ 25-33, 3 February 2009). COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the unreasonable length of her detention on remand. She further complains under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to examine “speedily” her appeals against the extensions of her detention ordered by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 10   May, 10 July, 4 October and 28 December 2018 and 3 April 2019. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Was the length of the applicant’s pre-trial detention in breach of the “reasonable time” requirement of Article   5 §   3 of the Convention?   2.     Did the length of the proceedings, by which the applicant sought to challenge the lawfulness of the extension of her detention ordered by the Łódź Court of Appeal on 10   May, 10 July, 4 October and 28 December 2018 and 3 April 2019, comply with the “speediness” requirement of Article   5 §   4 of the Convention?