FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 47993/99
by Stanisław FLORCZYŃSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 November 2003 as a Chamber composed of
MrM. Pellonpää, President,
MrsV. Strážnická,
MrM. Fischbach,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrR. Maruste,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 5 December 1997,
Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,
Having regard to the Court’s partial decision of 14 January 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Stanisław Florczyński, is a Polish national who was born in 1933 and lives in Warsaw, Poland.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In November 1982 the applicant was assaulted and beaten by a certain A.M. and A.P. On 31 March 1983 the Warsaw District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) convicted them of assault and causing bodily harm.
On 21 November 1983 the applicant filed a civil action with the Warsaw District Court against A.M. and A.P. claiming compensation for damage resulting from the assault.
Before 1 May 1993 the court obtained six expert reports, heard evidence form several witnesses and held a number of hearings. The proceedings were stayed for two periods: from 10 March 1988 until 2 May 1988 and from 28 September 1988 to 28 May 1990.
In November 1993 the court closed the examination of the case. The applicant asked the court to obtain further expert evidence.
On 6 September 1994 the court decided to obtain medical evidence from three experts (a neurologist, a surgeon and a cardiologist). On 21 October 1994 the court asked another expert (a psychiatrist) to prepare a report. The experts submitted their opinions on 6 December 1994, 14 March 1995, 3 June 1995 and 9 October 1996, respectively.
On 12 November 1996 and 12 March 1997 the court held hearings.
On 30 June 1997 yet another medical expert submitted his report to the court.
On 15 October 1997, 12 January, 13 May and 7 September 1998 the trial court held hearings.
On 28 September 1998 the Warsaw Regional Court gave judgment. The applicant appealed on 17 December 1998.
The proceedings were terminated by the judgment of the Warsaw Court of Appeal of 23 September 1999.
B. Events that took place after the case was communicated
On 22 January 2003 the Registrar sent a letter to the applicant, informing him that the Court had decided to give notice of his application to the Polish Government. The applicant did not reply.
On 17 April 2003 the Government submitted their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On 25 April 2003 the applicant was invited to file his pleading in reply by 23 May 2003.
The applicant did not comply with the time-limit fixed for the submission of his observations. Nor did he ask the Court for any extension.
On 26 June 2003 the Registry sent, by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt, a letter at the address indicated by the applicant. The applicant was asked to explain his failure to observe the procedure fixed in his case. The applicant was further warned that if he failed to respond to that letter within 4 weeks, the Court might conclude that he no longer intended to pursue his application.
On 28 July 2003 the letter was returned undelivered, together with a note which read: “non réclamé”.
A further letter was sent to the applicant by registered post on 7 August 2003 seeking confirmation as to whether he wished to continue with the application. He was advised that if no response was received by 4 September 2003 the Court would consider striking the case out of its list. On 15 September 2003 the letter was again returned undelivered.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The applicant complained that the length of the proceedings had been incompatible with the “reasonable time” requirement laid down in Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.
The respondent Government invited the Court to reject the application as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.
However, the Court, having regard to the events that occurred after the notice of the application had been given to the Polish Government and after they had submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, considers it does not have to deal substantively with the present application and that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied. That provision, in its relevant part, reads:
“1. 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.”
In this respect the Court notes that the applicant failed to submit within the time-limit his reply to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 17 April 2003. He has also failed to respond to two further communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 7 August 2003.
In the circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application and that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of his case. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, that would require it to continue the proceedings by virtue of that provision.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O’BoyleMatti Pellonpää
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy