SECOND SECTION
FINAL DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 74454/01
by Wojciech WOŹNIAK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 18 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrR. Türmen,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrL. Garlicki, judges
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 April 1999,
Having regard to the partial decision adopted on 14 February 2006,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Wojciech Woźniak, is a Polish national who was born in 1970 and lives in Warsaw. He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Brydak, a lawyer practising in Warszawa. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 16 April 1996 the applicant was arrested on a charge of armed robbery and detained on remand. The applicant’s detention was prolonged by numerous subsequent court decisions, with a final decision of the Supreme Court on 27 October 1999, because of the suspicion that he had committed the offence concerned, the complexity of the case and the significant number of co-accused (10 persons).
On 30 December 1996 the bill of indictment was transmitted to the Warsaw Regional Court.
On 29 December 1999 the Warsaw Regional Court found the applicant guilty of several acts of armed robbery, imposed concurrent sentences totalling ten years’ imprisonment and ordered the forfeiture of his civic rights for seven years.
The applicant lodged an appeal, which was dismissed on 29 May 2001 by the Warsaw Court of Appeal.
The applicant was represented by legal aid lawyers throughout the proceedings. He was advised against making a cassation appeal. On 8 March 2002 the Warsaw Court of Appeal refused the applicant’s request to appoint another legal aid lawyer in this matter.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the length of his detention on remand. He also complained that his detention had caused a deterioration in his family relationships, as well as the general welfare of his family members.
THE LAW
On 14 February 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government who submitted their observations on its admissibility and merits, to which the applicant was invited to reply. He failed to do so, despite an extension of the time-limit for that purpose, a grant of legal aid and reminders sent on 18 October 2006 and 23 March 2007 by registered mail warning the applicant’s representative that failure to submit observations might result in the strike-out of the application. A similar letter was sent directly to the applicant on 21 May 2007. Advice slips were returned to the Court indicating that the letters had reached their addressees.
On 9 July 2007 the Registry received a letter from the applicant’s representative in which he stated that for several months he had been unable to communicate with the applicant and, consequently, he could no longer represent him.
In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 a) of the Convention. Moreover, respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require the continued examination of the case. Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should therefore no longer be applied and the application should be struck out of the list of cases, in accordance with said Article 37 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the remainder of the application out of its list of cases.
F. Elens-PassosF. Tulkens
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy