FOURTH SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 42618/98
by P.O.
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 February 2004 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrsV. Strážnická,
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 26 March 1998,
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, Mr P.O., is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Wrocław, Poland.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 8 July 1995 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter.
On 24 November 1995 the prosecuting authorities filed with the Wrocław Regional Court (Sąd Wojewódzki) a bill of indictment against the applicant.
The trial court held in total twelve hearings and on 31 October 1997 it gave judgment.
On 19 December 1997 the applicant lodged an appeal against the Regional Court’s judgment.
On 30 January 1998 the applicant requested the Wrocław Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) to be brought from prison to the hearing. On 12 February 1998 the court refused his request, considering that his presence was unnecessary as the court would decide the case on the basis of the evidence presented to the Regional Court.
On 19 February 1998 the Wrocław Court of Appeal held a hearing and gave judgment. It changed the first-instance judgment in favour of the applicant by reducing the sentence of imprisonment.
On 20 May 1998 the applicant lodged a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court (Sąd Najwyższy). On 23 November 2000 the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s cassation appeal.
The applicant was represented by a lawyer before all the above mentioned courts.
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 10 April 2003 the Government submitted their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. On 14 April 2003 the applicant was invited to file his pleading in reply by 16 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 25 August 2003 the Registry sent another letter to the applicant. He was asked to explain his failure to observe the procedure fixed in his case. The applicant was further informed that if he failed to respond to that letter within four weeks, the Court might conclude that he no longer intended to pursue his application. The applicant did not reply.
A further letter was sent to the applicant by registered post on 29 October 2003 seeking confirmation as to whether he wished to continue with the application. He was advised that if no response was received by 25 November 2003 the Court would consider striking the case out of its list. It emerges from the relevant acknowledgement of receipt (signed by the applicant) that the letter was delivered to him on 10 November 2003.
The applicant has not to date resumed his correspondence with the Court.
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 10 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 29 October 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 case out of the list.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy