FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 27223/02
by Wiesław ŁUKOWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22 February 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrR. Maruste,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego, judges,
and Mr M. O'Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 July 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 deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Wiesław Łukowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1963 and lives in Augustów. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
I. The convictions for larceny
In 1995 the applicant was on two occasions convicted of larceny and sentenced to imprisonment.
On 16 March 2002 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 18 March 2002 the Augustów District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody on a charge of burglary. In particular, the applicant was charged with burgling a grocery store and stealing sweets, flour, margarine and cereals to the total value of PLN 500 (approx. EUR 110).
The applicant submits that on 16 March 2002 he was assaulted by the police officers.
On 29 April 2002 the prosecution service dismissed the applicant's request that the police officers who had allegedly assaulted him be prosecuted. The decision of the prosecution service was appealed against by the applicant but on 28 May 2002 the Augustów District Court dismissed his appeal. The decisions of the prosecution service and the District Court referred to a medical certificate of 17 March 2002 which stated that the applicant did not have any injuries. Moreover, the applicant's medical file showed that he was examined on 19 March 2002 but did not have any injuries. Finally, on 18 March 2002 the applicant appeared before a judge who extended his pre-trial detention but he did not complain to the judge about the alleged assault.
On 7 June 2002 the Augustów District Court extended the applicant's pre‑trial detention until 16 August 2002.
On 12 July 2002 the applicant was convicted as charged by the Augustów District Court and sentenced to two years' imprisonment.
It appears that the applicant appealed against his conviction but his appeal was dismissed.
The applicant was released on 7 February 2003.
II. The funeral of the applicant's father
On 7 November 2002 the applicant's father died. On 10 November 2002 the applicant was escorted to his father's funeral.
III. The monitoring of the applicant's correspondence
On 17 July 2002 the Court received the applicant's letter of 3 July 2002 which had been mailed on 5 July 2002. The envelope in which the letter was delivered bears the following stamps: “District Court, 16-300 Augustów, Second Criminal Section, 59 Młyńska Street, telephone 6434076” (Sąd Rejonowy, 16-300 w Augustowie, Drugi Wydział Karny, ul. Młyńska 59, tel. 6434076) and “censored, date, signature” (ocenzurowano, data, podpis).
COMPLAINTS
The Court raised ex officio a complaint under Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention in respect of monitoring of the applicant's correspondence.
The applicant complained, without invoking any provisions of the Convention, that he had been convicted despite the fact that he was innocent. The applicant also alleged that he was assaulted by the police on 16 March 2002. With respect to the funeral of his father, the applicant complained that he was not allowed to attend the funeral without an escort.
THE LAW
On 24 March 2004 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. On 20 July 2004 the Government's observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 26 August 2004. He failed to do so, despite a reminder from the Registry, by registered post, that such failure might result in the striking out of his application.
The Court infers from the applicant's continued silence that he does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court 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.
In these circumstances it considers that the case should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O'BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy