FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8377/02
by Ján CHICHO
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12 June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 January 2002,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ján Chicho, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1967 and has his registered address in Ratková. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
1. The applicant’s detention on remand
On 19 August 2000 the applicant was apprehended by the police and accused of blackmail (allegedly committed on 18 August 2000).
On 20 August 2000 the Revúca District Court remanded the applicant in custody with effect from 19 August 2000. The judge considered the applicant’s detention necessary so as to prevent him from committing further offences. On 20 September 2000 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint against that decision.
On 30 November 2000 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request for release. On 10 January 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint about that decision.
On 18 June 2001 the applicant applied for release. On 19 June 2001 the District Court decided to release the applicant. The District Court noted that, by a judgment of 11 June 2001, the applicant had been sentenced to ten months’ imprisonment. However, since the period of his detention on remand had been imputed to the service of his prison sentence, the applicant had completed that sentence by 19 June 2001. The decision stated that the reasons for the applicant’s detention had therefore fallen away.
The public prosecutor filed a complaint arguing that the District Court’s decision to acquit the applicant had not yet become final and that the reasons for the applicant’s detention still existed. As the complaint had a suspensive effect, the applicant remained in custody.
On 12 September 2001 the Regional Court dismissed the public prosecutor’s complaint holding that the reasons for the applicant’s detention were no longer valid as the applicant had already served his sentence and had been acquitted of the remaining charges. On the same day the applicant was released.
2. Criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 28 May 2000 the applicant was accused of having disturbed public order on 26 January 2000.
On 19 August 2000 the applicant was apprehended by the police. On the same date an investigator accused him of blackmail.
On 31 July 2000 the Revúca District Prosecutor filed an indictment with the Revúca District Court charging the applicant with disturbance of the public order (allegedly committed on 26 January 2000).
On 7 November 2000 the Revúca District Prosecutor indicted the applicant) before the Revúca District Court on charges of blackmail, causing bodily harm (allegedly committed on 18 August 2000) and disturbance of the public order (allegedly committed in July 2000. On 19 March 2001 the District Court decided to deal with the above two cases jointly.
On 11 June 2001 the District Court convicted the applicant of disturbance of the public order, sentenced him to ten months’ imprisonment and acquitted him of the charges of blackmail and causing bodily harm. Both the applicant and the public prosecutor appealed. In his appeal, the applicant maintained that he could not be convicted of the offence of disturbance of the public order committed on 18 August 2000 as he had already been found guilty of the same act in proceedings brought under the Minor Offences Act of 1990.
On 10 October 2001 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court dismissed both appeals.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention that his detention on remand had been unlawful.
2. Under Article 5 § 5 of the Convention the applicant complained that he should be compensated as the length of his detention on remand had exceeded the length of the sentence imposed by the Revúca District Court’s judgment of 11 June 2001.
3. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 3 (d) of the Convention that the courts had examined exclusively the witnesses and evidence against him.
4. Without invoking any Article of the Convention the applicant complained that he had been punished twice for the same offence in proceedings under the Minor Offences Act and in the above criminal proceedings.
THE LAW
The Court observes that by a letter of 11 October 2006 the applicant was informed that the President of the Chamber had decided that legal aid should be granted to him. The applicant was requested to inform the Court by 14 November 2006 of the name and address of the lawyer who would represent him in the further proceedings.
By the same letter of 11 October 2006 the applicant was invited to reply, by 27 November 2006, to the observations of the Government on the above application.
The Court has received no reply to that letter.
By a registered letter of 17 April 2007 the Registrar of the Fourth Section informed the applicant that the period allowed for submission of his observations in reply to those of the Government 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 at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
The letter was returned to the Court, unopened, on 21 May 2007. The stamps and handwritten remarks on the envelope indicate that, due to his absence, the post had not managed to deliver the letter to the applicant at his address on 23 April 2007, and that a notice had been left for him informing him that he could pick the letter up at the post office. As the applicant had not come to the post office, the post sent the envelope back to the sender on 15 May 2007.
Upon registration of the application, on 3 December 2002, the applicant had been asked to inform the Court of any change in his address.
In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. The Court also considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case.
Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should therefore no longer be applied and the application should be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy