FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 71628/01
by Dariusz OSTAPIUK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 June 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MrsL. Mijović, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 May 2000,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Dariusz Ostapiuk, is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Strzelce Opolskie, Poland. The Polish Government (“the 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.
A. The applicant’s detention on remand
On 11 April 1998 the Bytom District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) detained the applicant on remand. The court considered that his detention was justified by the existence of strong evidence against him and the gravity of the charges. The Katowice Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld that decision on 29 April 1998.
On 3 July 1998 the District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 9 October 1998. The court found that the original grounds for keeping the applicant in custody were still valid. The Regional Court upheld that decision on 2 September 1998.
On 23 September 1998 the applicant was indicted for having committed an assault.
On 28 September 1998 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 April 1999. That decision was upheld by the Katowice Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) on 21 October 1998.
The applicant’s requests for release were dismissed by the Katowice Regional Court. The court considered that there were “no grounds for release” as referred to in Article 259 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
On 26 April 1999 the applicant’s detention was further prolonged by the Regional Court. The court ordered that he remain in custody until 30 September 1999. The Court of Appeal upheld that decision on 2 June 1999.
On 2 August 1999 the Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s application for release. The court repeated the reasons given before.
On 24 September 1999 the Katowice Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 6 years’ imprisonment.
On 25 May 2000 the Katowice Court of Appeal quashed the first-instance judgment and remitted the case.
The applicant remained in custody.
On 26 June 2000 the Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 December 2000. On 9 August 2000 the Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court for reconsideration. On 9 August 2000 the Regional Court upheld its original decision.
The applicant’s detention was subsequently prolonged several times by the Regional Court. He unsuccessfully appealed against those decisions.
On 9 August 2001 the Katowice Regional Court upheld its original judgment and convicted the applicant as charged.
On 23 May 2002 the Katowice Court of Appeal amended the first-instance judgment and upheld the remainder of it.
The applicant’s officially-appointed lawyer informed the court on 19 June 2002 that he would not lodge a cassation appeal on his behalf as there were no grounds for doing so.
B. Events that took place after the case was communicated
On 2 November 2005 the Registrar sent a letter to the applicant’s prison, informing him that the Court had decided to give notice of his complaint concerning the excessive length of his detention to the Polish Government. The latter also informed the applicant that the court had declared the remainder of his application inadmissible. On 9 November 2005 the prison authorities returned the letter. They informed the Court that the applicant had been released and could be contacted at his home address, as previously indicated in his application form. A letter addressed to the applicant’s home address was returned undelivered with a note “the addressee unknown”.
On 8 March 2006 the Government submitted their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application.
On 11 April 2006 the Registrar sent, by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt, a further letter to the applicant’s home address. The latter invited the applicant to submit his pleadings in reply to the Government’s observations. The letter was returned undelivered, together with an indication that the addressee had moved.
The applicant has not to date resumed his correspondence with the Court.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand.
THE LAW
Having regard to the events that occurred after the notice of the application had been given to the Polish Government, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied.
This 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.”
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”. After his release from prison, the applicant did not notify the Court of his new address. In consequence, communication with him could not be carried out and it was impossible for the Court to continue the examination of the application.
The Court concludes that the applicant has lost interest in maintaining his application. It is therefore 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. In these circumstances, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued and the case struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention;
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy