FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 30220/96
by Tadeusz MIEDZIANOWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 July 2000 as a Chamber composed of
MrG. Ress, President,
MrA. Pastor Ridruejo,
MrL. Caflisch,
MrJ. Makarczyk,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrM. Pellonpää, judges,
andMrV. Berger, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 December 1995 and registered on 15 February 1996,
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 observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Polish national, born in 1952 and living in Głogów (Poland). He is represented before the Court by Mr Andrzej Zabłocki, a lawyer practising in Zgorzelec (Poland).
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant is the owner of a limited liability company.
On 10 March 1995 the Głogów District Court convicted the applicant of a continuous offence of fraudulent tax evasion. The court found that the offence had been committed from 1 January 1990 to 30 June 1992. The applicant was sentenced to a fine of PLN 2,000, with imprisonment in default. The fine was fixed on the basis of Article 99 § 1 of the Fiscal Offences Act as amended on 10 October 1991.
The applicant filed an appeal with the Legnica Regional Court. He contended that the judgment infringed Article 2 of the Criminal Code read together with Article 99 § 1 of the Fiscal Offences Act in that a heavier penalty had been imposed on him than that which had been in force when the offence had been committed.
On 10 July 1995 the Legnica Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
PROCEDURE
The application was introduced before the European Commission of Human Rights on 18 December 1995 and registered on 15 February 1996.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
On 20 April 1999 the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government under Rule 54 § 3 (b) of the Rules of Court.
On 13 July 1999 the Government submitted their observations. On 16 July 1999 they were transmitted to the applicant’s counsel who was invited to submit before 3 September 1999 any written observations he wished to make in reply. However, he failed to reply within the time-limit fixed by the Court.
On 17 December 1999 the Registry of the Court sent a letter to the applicant and his counsel reminding them that they had not replied to the Government’s observations of 13 July 1999. The letter further drew their attention to the fact that the failure to reply might result in a decision to strike the application out of the list of cases. The applicant received the letter on 23 December 1999 and his counsel on 6 January 2000. However, they have not replied.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant claims that the facts of his case disclose a breach of Articles 6 and 7 § 1 of the Convention.
THE LAW
Having regard to the applicant’s failure to reply to the Government’s observations of 13 July 1999 and the Court’s letter of 17 December 1999, as well as to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court finds that the applicant no longer intends to pursue the petition. It finds no reason within the meaning of the final sentence of Article 37 § 1 which would require it to continue with its examination of the case.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Vincent BergerGeorg Ress
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy