WERDENOWSKI proti Polsku

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF

Application no. 17088/04
by Michał WERDENOWSKI
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 December 2006 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza, President,

Mr J. Casadevall,
Mr G. Bonello,
Mr K. Traja,
Mr L. Garlicki,
Ms L. Mijović,
Mr J. Šikuta, judges,
and Mrs F. Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 April 2004,

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 Michał Werdenowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1976 and lives in Gdańsk - Wrzeszcz. 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.

On 17 April 2002 the applicant was detained on remand on charges of drug trafficking and possession of drugs. On 18 April 2002 a detention order was issued by the Gdańsk District Court. The applicant’s detention was prolonged by subsequent decisions: the Gdańsk Regional Court decisions of 4 June 2002, 5 September 2002, 20 May 2003, 13 August 2003 and 27 November 2003, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal decisions of 30 December 2003, 23 March 2004, 26 May 2004, 28 July 2004, 26 October 2004, 24 November 2004 and 28 December 2004.

The authorities repeatedly relied on the strong probability that the applicant had committed the offence he had been charged with and on the severe sentence at stake (up to 10 years’ imprisonment), giving rise to a presumption that he would obstruct the proper course of the proceedings.

The applicant challenged the detention orders by way of different avenues provided for by Polish law. He lodged appeals against the detention orders, requests for the application of a more lenient preventive measure in place of the detention on remand and requests for release from detention. His appeals and requests were dismissed by the Gdańsk Regional Court decision of 13 May 2002, by the Regional Prosecutor’s decisions of 7 June 2002, 5 August 2002, 2 September 2002, 11 September 2002 and by the Gdańsk Court of Appeal decisions of 25 September 2002, 19 December 2002, 13 August 2003, 27 November 2003, 10 February 2004, 2 March 2004, 6 April 2004, 7 April 2004, 15 June 2004 and 17 November 2004.

He was detained on remand until 26 January 2005 when the Gdańsk Regional Court found the applicant guilty of drug trafficking and possession of drugs and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, a fine and a contribution to the funding of institutions combating drug addiction.

The applicant did not lodge an appeal against the judgment of 26 January 2005. It transpires from the correspondence that the applicant was released from a detention centre not later than 17 May 2006.

COMPLAINT

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

THE LAW

On 24 February 2006 the Court received the applicant’s request for legal aid.

By a letter of 1 March 2006 the applicant was invited to provide information about his financial situation for the purpose of deciding whether legal aid should be granted to him. The deadline for the applicant’s answer was 22 March 2006. The applicant did not answer.

By a letter of 11 May 2006 sent by registered mail the applicant was again asked to provide the required information before 29 May 2006. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides:

“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.”

On 24 May 2006 a postal delivery report was received by the Court indicating that the applicant had been released from the detention centre to which the letter of 11 May 2006 had been sent.

By a letter of 7 June 2006, sent by registered mail, the applicant was again asked to provide the required information before 28 June 2006. This time the letter was sent to the address which the applicant had indicated as his address for correspondence in one of his previous letters to the Court. The applicant was informed by the Court about the possibility that his application might be struck out of the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

On 21 June 2006 a postal delivery report was received by the Court, stating that the letter of 7 June 2006 had been delivered to the applicant’s address (the applicant’s father signed the postal delivery report).

By a letter of 22 August 2006 the Government’s observations were sent by registered mail to the applicant. The applicant was asked to submit his observations together with his proposal for just satisfaction before 3 October 2006. He was informed that if he failed to respond, his case might be struck out of the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Information was also included in the letter (in Polish) that in the case of its receipt by a third person, this person should hand it over to the applicant.

On 1 September 2006 the Court received a postal delivery report stating that the letter of 22 August 2006 had been delivered to the applicant’s address. It was again the applicant’s father who had signed the postal delivery report. No answer has been received by the Court.

Therefore since:

(i) it may be inferred that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application, and

(ii) respect for human rights does not require it to guarantee the examination of the application, the application should be struck out of the list of cases.

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 the list of cases.

Françoise Elens-Passos Nicolas Bratza
Deputy Registrar President