European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 49090/06
by Grzegorz MAZUR
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 7 April 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 November 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 deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Grzegorz Mazur, is a Polish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Oława. The Polish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

The applicant was arrested on 10 January 2004 on charges of acting in an organised criminal gang and by a decision of the Opole District Court of 12 January 2004 he was detained on remand.

Subsequently, the applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged on several occasions by the Opole Regional Court (decisions of 6 April 2004, 27 July 2004, 29 November 2004, 22 February 2005, 9 May 2005, 9 August 2005 and 2 December 2005) and by the Wrocław Court of Appeal (decisions of 7 December 2005, 19 April 2006, 22 June 2006 and 5 October 2006).

The applicant unsuccessfully applied for release from detention and to have that preventive measure changed to a more lenient one (the applicant’s complaints of 29 June 2006 and 11 October 2006).

The courts justified their decisions prolonging the applicant’s detention on remand and their refusals to release him by the complexity of the case, the significant number of the accused, the existence of a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences concerned and by the severity of the anticipated sentence. These considerations led the courts to assume that the applicant, if released, could obstruct the proper course of the proceedings.

On 3 January 2007 the applicant was released but the court imposed on him a ban on leaving the country and placed him under police supervision. The proceedings are currently pending before the first-instance court.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.

THE LAW

By a letter dated 19 December 2007 the Government requested an extension until 9 January 2008 of the time allowed for submission of their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The extension was granted to the Government, who failed to submit their observations.

By a letter of 10 March 2008 the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the Government’s observations had expired on 9 January 2008. The applicant was invited to submit by 18 April 2008 at the latest any written observations which he might wish to make, with any claims for just satisfaction. The applicant failed to submit any comments or claims.

By a letter dated 23 September 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 18 April 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. The applicant received this letter on 27 September 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. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President