FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 23055/02
by Jurij MEDVEDEVS
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 June 2002,
Having regard to the Court’s decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jurijs Medvedevs, is a Latvian national who was born in 1965 and lives in Valmiera. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J.Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Latvian Government did not make use of their right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention).
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant was arrested on 19 June 1998. On 20 June 1998 the Gdańsk District Court remanded him in custody on suspicion of homicide.
The applicant’s detention on remand was subsequently extended on several occasions.
On 30 April 1999 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court. The applicant was charged with armed robbery and attempted homicide.
On 13 June 2000 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment. The applicant appealed. On 10 January 2001 the Gdańsk Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case for retrial.
On 29 May 2002 the Gdańsk Regional Court again convicted the applicant and sentenced him to 10 years’ imprisonment. Throughout the proceedings the applicant was represented by a defence counsel.
B. Events that took place after the case was communicated
On 29 May 2007 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 letter was returned to the Registry. On 18 July 2007 and 30 August 2007 the Registry sent, by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt, letters to both addresses indicated by the applicant. They were returned with a note “addressee unknown”.
On 8 October 2007 the Government submitted their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On 17 January 2008 the applicant was invited to file his pleading in reply by 27 February 2008. The letter to the applicant, sent by registered mail with an acknowledgment of receipt, was returned unclaimed. A subsequent letter sent on 11 March 2008 to a second address indicated by the applicant was also returned unclaimed.
The applicant has not to date resumed his correspondence with the Court.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the excessive length of his detention on remand. He also alleged that he had been wrongly convicted despite his innocence and that he had been discriminated against by the courts on the ground of his foreign nationality. The applicant invoked Articles 5 §§ 1-5, 6 §§ 1-3, 8, 10 and 14 of the Convention.
THE LAW
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, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied.
The Court also recalls that, pursuant to Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court, “applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application”. 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 8 October 2007. The applicant has also failed to respond to further communications from the Registry of the Court, which were sent by registered letters, the last one dated 11 March 2008.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy