Comunicat la 12 mai 2017 PRIMEA SECȚIUNE Cerere nr. 60136/13 Robert F La 6 februarie 2010, la ora 18:30, reclamantul a fost arestat după suspiciune de crimă. La ora 15:01, un test de respiră a arătat nivelul său de sânge-alcool ca 2,24 grame pe litru. El susține, de asemenea, că în seara de 5 februarie 2010, el a luat nitrazepam (un medicament hipnotic prescris pentru ameliorarea pe termen scurt de la sever, dezactivarea anxietate și insomnie). La 7 februarie 2010, reclamantul a fost interogat de poliție. El a mărturisit că a ucis K.K., care a fost partenerul său de apartament și un anumit partener al lui J.G. și cu care a fost, de asemenea, într-o relație. El a susținut că el a strangulat-o ca el a fost gelos pentru că ea a fost culcat cu alți oameni. El a semnat un document care l-a consiliat cu privire la drepturile sale, inclusiv dreptul de asistență a avocatului în apărare, astfel cum prevede art. 300 din Codul de Procedință Penală. La 8 februarie 2010, reclamantul a susținut declarațiile sale în fața instanței în timpul procedurii privind impunerea deținerii în custodie. În timp ce este interogat în custodie și ulterior de procuror, reclamantul nu a fost asistat de un avocat. La 29 martie 2010, reclamantul a depus o cerere de atribuire a unui avocat de asistență juridică, dar această cerere nu a fost adresată de instanță. La 12 aprilie 2010, procurorul a ordonat un raport de experți privind sănătatea mentală a reclamantului la momentul în care a fost comisă infracțiunile. Raportul a fost depus la 21 aprilie 2010. Reclamantul nu a fost considerat că a avut o responsabilitate diminuată. La 19 aprilie 2010, reclamantul a numit un avocat de propria sa alegere. La 17 iunie 2010, reclamantul nu a mărturisit o crimă atunci când a auzit de curte. El a susținut că declarațiile sale anterioare i-au fost sugerate de un ofițer de poliție. El a susținut că el nu își amintește ce s-a întâmplat deoarece a băut alcool și a luat douăzeci de pastile de nitrazepam. El a adăugat că a luat aproximativ două până la șase pastile de nitrazepam în fiecare zi. La 2 decembrie 2011, Curtea Regională Wrocław a condamnat reclamantul de crimă și l-a condamnat la 15 ani de închisoare. Curtea a declarat că reclamantul a fost dependent de alcool și a fost tratat într-un centru de tratament al alcoolului. și J.G., care bea alcool cu reclamantul și victima la 6 februarie 2010. Curtea a stabilit că reclamantul a trăit cu victima și J.G. timp de aproape două săptămâni înainte de comisionul crimei. Alte martori (mama victimei, sora victimei și soțul ei, vecinii victimei și ofițerii de poliție) au fost examinate. Februarie 2010, când a fost interogat, reclamantul a fost treaz, dar că a suferit de intoxicare cu alcool de mai multe zile (confirmat de un raport expert). Un raport privat de experți și un raport de experți de stat cu privire la semnătura reclamantului au fost examinate de către instanță ca dovezi: raportul privat a declarat că reclamantul a fost sub influența alcoolului atunci când a semnat documentul care îl consiliază cu privire la drepturile sale; raportul expertului de stat a declarat că a suferit de intoxicație alcoolică care i-a făcut tremura mâinile. Inspecția externă a cadavrului victimei a fost comisă și expertul a dat dovezi înaintea instanței. Analiza ADN a corzii folosite pentru strangularea victimei nu a dezvăluit ADN-ul reclamantului. Reclamantul a apelat, declarând în esență că condamnarea sa s-a bazat pe declarații formulate fără asistența unui avocat. El a declarat, de asemenea, că la 7 februarie 2010, el a fost încă sub influența alcoolului. La 19 aprilie 2012, Curtea de Apel Wrocław a susținut hotărârea instanței de primă instanță. Curtea a susținut că prezența unui avocat în timpul anchetei nu a fost obligatorie în temeiul Codului de procedură penală. Reclamantul a fost informat în scris cu privire la drepturile sale, inclusiv dreptul de a fi interogat în prezența unui avocat și a semnat documentul de consiliere cu privire la aceste drepturi. La 6 februarie 2013, Curtea Supremă a respins recursul de casare al reclamantului ca fiind evident nefondat. Această decizie a fost transmisă reclamantului la 23 martie 2013. Legea internă relevantă privind asistența juridică în cadrul procedurilor penale este prevăzută în hotărârea Curții în cauza Płonka c. Polonia (nr. 20310/02, §§ 19-20, 31 martie 2009). Salduz v. Turcia [GC], nr. 36391/02, §§ 50-55, CEDO 2008) a existat o încălcare a articolului 6 §§ § 1 și 3 litera (c) din Convenție ca urmare a lipsei de asistență juridică disponibilă reclamantului în timpul interogarii sale de către poliție? Presupunând că reclamantul și-a renunțat dreptul la avocat, a fost stabilit într-un mod neechilibrat și a demonstrat că reclamantul ar fi putut prevedea în mod rezonabil ce consecințe ar fi conduitele sale (a se vedea Pavlenko c. Rusia , nr. 42371/02, § 102, 1 aprilie 2010)?
Communicated on 12 May 2017
Application no. 60136/13
Robert FĄFARA
against Poland
lodged on 6 September 2013
The applicant, Mr Robert Fąfara, is a Polish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Oleśnica. He is represented before the Court by Ms
B.
Słupska-Uczkiewicz, a lawyer practising in Wrocław.
A.
Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 6 February 2010 at 6.30 p.m the applicant was arrested on suspicion of murder. At 3.01 p.m. a breathalyser test had shown his blood-alcohol level as 2.24 grams per litre. He also submits that in the evening of 5
February
2010 he took nitrazepam (a hypnotic drug prescribed for short
‑
term relief from severe, disabling anxiety and insomnia).
On 7 February 2010 the applicant was questioned by the police. He confessed that he had murdered K.K., who had been his flatmate and a certain J.G.’s partner and with whom he had also been in a relationship. He submitted that he had strangled her as he had been jealous because she had been sleeping with other men. He signed a document advising him of his rights, including the right the assistance of defence counsel as provided by Article 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On 8 February 2010 the applicant upheld his statements before the court during the proceedings concerning the imposition of detention on remand.
While being questioned in custody and subsequently by the prosecutor, the applicant was not assisted by a lawyer.
On 29 March 2010 the applicant lodged an application to be assigned a legal-aid lawyer but this application was not addressed by the court.
On 12 April 2010 the prosecutor ordered an expert report on the applicant’s mental health at the time when the crime had been committed. The report was submitted on 21 April 2010. The applicant was not considered to have had diminished responsibility.
On 19 April 2010 the applicant appointed a lawyer of his own choice.
On 17 June 2010 the applicant did not confess to murder when heard by the court. He submitted that his previous statements had been suggested to him by a police officer. He maintained that he did not remember what had happened as he had drunk alcohol and taken twenty pills of nitrazepam. He added that he had been taking around two to six pills of nitrazepam every day.
On 2 December 2011 the Wrocław Regional Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. The court stated that the applicant had been addicted to alcohol and had undergone treatment in an alcohol-addiction treatment facility. During the proceedings the court heard evidence from A.K. and J.G., who had been drinking alcohol with the applicant and the victim on 6 February 2010. The court established that the applicant had lived with the victim and J.G. for almost two weeks before the commission of the murder. Other witnesses (the victim’s mother, the victim’s sister and her husband, the victim’s neighbours and police officers) were also examined. The court held that on 7
February 2010, when questioned, the applicant had been sober but that he had been suffering from alcohol intoxication for several days (confirmed by an expert report). A private expert report and a State expert report on the applicant’s signature were examined by the court as evidence: the private report stated that the applicant had been under the influence of alcohol when signing the document advising him of his rights; the State expert’s report stated that he had been suffering from alcohol intoxication which had caused his hands to tremble. The external inspection of the victim’s corpse was commissioned and the expert gave evidence before the court. The DNA analysis of the string used to strangle the victim had not revealed the applicant’s DNA.
The applicant appealed, submitting in essence that his conviction had been based on statements made without the assistance of a lawyer. He also stated that on 7 February 2010 he had still been under the influence of the alcohol.
On 19 April 2012 the Wrocław Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the court of first instance. The court held that the presence of a lawyer during questioning had not been obligatory under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The applicant had been informed in writing of his rights, including the right to be questioned in the presence of a lawyer, and he had signed the document advising him of those rights. The question of whether the applicant had still been under the influence of alcohol when signing the document had been examined by the court of first instance.
On 6 February 2013 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal as manifestly ill-founded. This decision was served on the applicant on 23 March 2013.
B.
Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law concerning legal assistance in criminal proceedings is set out in the Court’s judgment in the case
Płonka v. Poland
(no. 20310/02, §§ 19-20, 31 March 2009).
The applicant complains under Article
6 §
1 read in conjunction with Article
6 §
3
(c) of a violation of his right to defend himself.
1.
Having regard to the Court’s case-law (see
Salduz v. Turkey
[GC], no.
36391/02, §§ 50-55, ECHR 2008) has there been a breach of Article
6 §§
1 and 3 (c) of the Convention as a result of the lack of legal assistance available to the applicant during his questioning by the police?
2.
Assuming that the applicant waived his right to lawyer, was it established in an unequivocal manner and was it shown that the applicant could reasonably have foreseen what the consequences of his conduct would be (see
Pavlenko v. Russia
, no. 42371/02, § 102, 1 April 2010)?