FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22265/05
by Zenon CYBULSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Giovanni Bonello, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 February 2005,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Zenon Cybulski, is a Polish national who was born in 1948 and lives in Łowicz, Poland. The Polish Government were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A. The criminal proceedings
The applicant submitted that he had been detained on remand in connection with criminal proceedings.
On 3 January 2005 the Rawa Mazowiecka District Prosecutor decided to discontinue investigation into the applicant’s allegations that he had been beaten up by the police in October 2004 and that he had been persecuted by his wife and daughter. The prosecutor considered that the allegations were unsubstantiated and manifestly ill-founded. It appears that the applicant did not lodge an appeal against this decision with the District Court.
B. The interference with the applicant’s correspondence
On 14 February 2005 the applicant wrote a letter to the Registrar of the Court in which he complained about his pre-trial detention, It appears that at the material time the applicant was detained on remand at the disposal of the Rawa Mazowiecka District Prosecutor. The envelope in which the letter was delivered to the Court bears a stamp of the Łowicz Prison (Zakład Karny w Łowiczu), the date 17 February 2005 and an illegible signature. However, from the post office stamp it appears that the letter was posted in Rawa Mazowiecka, almost 4 months later, on 10 June 2005. The letter was delivered to the Court on 14 June 2005.
On 20 April 2005 the applicant wrote a second letter to the Court complaining that he had not received a reply to his first letter of 14 February 2005. From the stamp on the envelope it appears that the letter was submitted to the registry of the Łowicz Prison on 21 April 2005. However, it was posted in Rawa Mazowiecka 7 weeks later, on 10 June 2005. It was delivered to the Court on 14 June 2005.
Two subsequent letters from the applicant, of 10 October 2005 and 12 October 2006, each bear a stamp of the Łowicz Prison and a stamp of the Rawa Mazowiecka Deputy District Prosecutor (Zastępca Prokuratora Rejonowego), Mr Robert Gdak, an illegible signature and a hand written note: “forward” (“przesłać”). The letters were posted in Rawa Mazowiecka without delay.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained in a very confused manner, and without invoking any Articles of the Convention, about the Polish judiciary, his arrest and conviction as well as about the alleged censorship of his correspondence with his family.
THE LAW
By letter dated 25 January 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit by 7 March 2008 any observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction.
By letter dated 8 April 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 7 March 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. He was requested to inform the Court by 29 April 2008 whether he wished to pursue his application. It emerges from the relevant acknowledgement of receipt, signed by the applicant, that he had received this letter on 14 April 2008. However, no response has been received.
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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously.
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıGiovanni Bonello
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy