FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 34831/03
by Zbigniew BREJNAK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 October 2003,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention).
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Zbigniew Brejnak, was a Polish national who was born in 1961 and lived in Jastrzębie Zdrój. 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.
On 3 June 1997 the Jastrzębie Zdrój District Court convicted the applicant of causing bodily injury and sentenced him to 1 year and 6 months' imprisonment, the execution of the sentence being conditionally stayed for 3 years.
On 15 December 1998 the Jastrzębie Zdrój District Court again convicted the applicant of causing bodily harm and sentenced him to 8 months' imprisonment.
On 12 May 2003 the Gliwice Regional Court revoked the applicant's conditional release allowed by the Opole Regional Court's decision of 22 June 2001 on the ground that the applicant had failed to fulfil the obligations imposed on him in connection with that release.
On 29 August 2003 the applicant lodged a request with the relevant penitentiary authorities to be granted leave to visit his seriously ill father in a hospital.
While awaiting a decision of the court, on 2 September 2003 the applicant was informed about his father's death. Subsequently, he lodged a request for release to enable him to attend the funeral.
On 4 September 2003 the Penitentiary Judge of the Łódź Regional Court dismissed his request, concluding that the applicant had an “average” behaviour in prison. The court also observed that the applicant's conditional release had been revoked and that he had returned to prison intoxicated. The court concluded that there were no compelling reasons to release the applicant to allow him to attend his father's funeral. The applicant appealed.
On 6 September 2003 the funeral took place.
On 23 September 2003 the Łódź Regional Court (Penitentiary Section) upheld the contested decision, having found that the appeal was manifestly ill-founded since the applicant merely criticised the court's decision and further failed to present any arguments that could have justified his release.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained implicitly under Article 8 of the Convention that the refusal to allow him to attend his father's funeral had amounted to a violation of his right to respect for his family life.
THE LAW
Notice of the application was given to the Government on 26 October 2007. On 29 February 2008 the Government submitted their observations. By letter dated 3 March 2008 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 14 April 2008. The applicant failed to respond to the Registry's letter.
By letter dated 15 July 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant was requested to reply by 8 August 2008. On 21 July 2008 the Registry's letter was returned. It bore a stamp indicating that the addressee had died. It transpires that none of the applicant's family members collected the post.
The Court notes that the applicant died and that no request has been submitted by the applicant's heirs to pursue the examination of the case. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy