CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 14 janvier 1998

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }                        Application No. 27376/95                       by Adam ADAMCZEWSKI                       against Poland        The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 14 January 1998, the following members being present:                MM    J.-C. GEUS, President                 M.A. NOWICKI                 G. JÖRUNDSSON                 A. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                 J.-C. SOYER                 H. DANELIUS            Mrs   G.H. THUNE            MM    F. MARTINEZ                 I. CABRAL BARRETO                 J. MUCHA                 D. SVÁBY                 P. LORENZEN                 E. BIELIUNAS                 E.A. ALKEMA                 A. ARABADJIEV              Ms    M.-T. SCHOEPFER, Secretary to the Chamber          Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;        Having regard to the application introduced on 28 June 1994 by Adam ADAMCZEWSKI against Poland and registered on 23 May 1995 under file No. 27376/95;        Having regard to :   -     the reports provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of      the Commission;   -     the observations submitted by the respondent Government on      8 April 1997 and the correspondence between the Secretariat and      the applicant since 29 November 1996;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:   THE FACTS        The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1968, is an economist currently detained in Wejherowo prison.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows:   Particular circumstances of the case        On 24 January 1994 the applicant was arrested by the police.   On 25 January 1994 the Malbork District Prosecutor (Prokurator   Rejonowy) charged the applicant with fraud and detained him on remand until 24 March 1994 in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offence with which he had been charged.        On 4 February 1994 the Malbork District Prosecutor laid twenty- three charges of fraud, aggravated fraud and forgery against the applicant.   The charges were based on information given by several firms, banks and individuals, and also resulting from various documents.        On 7 February 1994 the applicant filed an appeal against the detention order.   The appeal was dismissed on 21 March 1994 by the Elbl*g District Court (S*d Rejonowy) which found that there was a strong probability that the applicant had committed serious offences together with other persons.        In the meantime, on 17 March 1994, the Malbork District Prosecutor prolonged the applicant's detention until 24 April 1994 on the ground that the investigations had not yet been concluded; that there was a danger of collusion; that the applicant was suspected of having committed serious offences; and that no circumstances argued for his release.        On 18 April 1994, upon the request of the Malbork District Prosecutor, the Elbl*g Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki) prolonged the applicant's detention until 20 June 1994 in view of the continuing suspicion that he had committed the offences in question, and as the investigations had not been terminated.   This decision was upheld by the Gdansk Court of Appeal (S*d Apelacyjny) on 11 May 1994.        In May 1994, on an unspecified date, the Gdansk Regional Prosecutor (Prokurator Wojewodzki) took over the investigations from the Malbork District Prosecutor.        On 8 June 1994 the decision relating to the charges laid against the applicant dated 4 February 1994 was communicated to him.        On 14 June 1994 the Gdansk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention until 30 September 1994.   Upon his appeal, this decision was upheld by the Gdansk Court of Appeal on 6 July 1994 in view of the numerous charges against the applicant and the continuing suspicion that he had committed the offences in question.        On 28 June 1994 the applicant wrote to the Commission.   From a stamp on the first page of his letter it transpires that the letter was opened and read by the Gdansk Regional Prosecutor on 6 July 1994. Meanwhile, in June 1994 the applicant requested the Gdansk Regional Prosecutor to release him.   He also requested access to the case-file. These requests were refused on 24 June and 2 July 1994 by the Gdansk Regional Prosecutor and, upon appeal, by the Gdansk Prosecutor of Appeal (Prokurator Apelacyjny) on 29 July 1994.   The latter confirmed that there was a suspicion that the applicant had committed serious offences.        On 25 August 1994 the applicant again wrote to the Commission. His letter was opened and read by the Gdansk Regional Prosecutor on 5 September 1994.        On 22 September 1994 the Gdansk Regional Court prolonged the applicant's detention on remand until 30 December 1994.   This decision was upheld on 23 November 1994 by the Gdansk Court of Appeal, inter alia with reference to the grounds given by that court on 6 July 1994. The court nevertheless expressed the opinion that continuation of the investigations after 30 December 1994 would be undesirable and might result in the applicant's release.        On 30 September 1994 the Public Prosecutor's Office requested a graphology expert to establish whether the applicant had signed certain documents.        On 24 November 1994 the applicant again wrote to the Commission. His letter was opened and read by the Gdansk Regional Prosecutor on 29 November 1994.        On 12 and 19 December 1994 the investigating prosecutor charged the applicant with further counts of fraud.        From 12 December 1994 until 16 December 1994 the investigating prosecutor permitted the applicant to consult the case-file which, according to the applicant, consisted of twelve volumes.        On 19 December 1994 the applicant wrote a letter to the Commission which was opened and read by the Gdansk Regional Prosecutor on 29 December 1994.        On 20 December 1994 the applicant requested access to the entire case-file.   He also requested that certain witnesses and experts should be called, and that he should be confronted with other witnesses and with a co-suspect.   On 28 December 1994 this request was refused as irrelevant.        On 30 December 1994 the Gdansk Regional Prosecutor sent a bill of indictment to the Gdansk Regional Court.        On 31 December 1994 the applicant complained to the Chief Justice of the Gdansk Regional Court about his detention on remand.   In his view, his detention order had expired on 31 December 1994 at 6.20 a.m. The request was considered to be an application for release.   It was transferred to the Criminal Division of the Gdansk Regional Court and dismissed on 5 January 1995.   On 18 January 1995, upon the applicant's appeal, the Gdansk Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the court of first instance.        On an unspecified date in March or April 1995 the applicant filed further requests for release with the Gdansk Regional Court.   At the same time he also filed requests for certain evidence to be obtained.        On 20 April 1995 the Gdansk Regional Court dismissed the applicant's requests in view of the continuing suspicion that he had committed serious criminal offences.   However, the relevant decision specified the applicant's name as "Adamski" not "Adamczewski" and the grounds of accusation were indicated as robbery committed by a recidivist.        On 25 May 1995 the Gdansk Regional Court dismissed the subsequent request for release by the applicant, finding that the grounds for his continuing detention had not ceased to exist.        On 31 July 1995 the trial commenced before the Gdansk Regional Court.   However, this hearing was adjourned as neither the applicant's lawyer nor that of his co-defendant appeared.        On the same day, the court fixed the hearing for 23 November 1995 and also dismissed the applicant's request for release or for the preventive measure imposed on him to be altered.        On 9 August 1995, upon the applicant's further appeal, the Gdansk Court of Appeal altered the preventive measure imposed and ordered the applicant's release on police supervision, i.e. on condition that he report weekly to the Gdynia police authorities.   The court considered that the suspicion that the applicant had committed the relevant offences persisted; however, continuation of the detention on remand would amount to anticipation of serving a prison sentence.        On 18 November 1995 the applicant was arrested and detained on remand on suspicion of having committed a further offence of fraud on 15 November 1995.   His requests for release were dismissed on 23 February and 24 May 1996 by the Gdynia District Court in view of the serious nature of the offences committed.   The court further noted that the applicant had not complied with the conditions of his release ordered on 9 August 1995 and also referred to a danger that he might abscond.   COMPLAINTS   1.    The applicant raises the following complaints under Article 5 of the Convention.        He submits that no clear grounds were given for his detention on remand.        He further complains that the length of his detention on remand was excessive, and that it was unjustifiably prolonged.        The applicant submits that as from 6.20 a.m. on 31 December 1994 his detention was unlawful, as the period fixed by the Gdansk Provincial Court on 22 September 1994 had by then expired.        The applicant further complains that his requests for release from detention on remand filed in January and March 1995 were not decided speedily.   Moreover, the decision of the Gdansk Provincial Court of 20 April 1995 did not give sufficient reasons for prolonging his detention, spelt his name wrongly and incorrectly described the legal provisions governing the charges.        The applicant complains, lastly, that his renewed arrest and detention as from 18 November 1995 was unjustified.   He submits that his detention as a whole has meanwhile exceeded two years.   2.    The applicant also raises various complaints under Article 6 of the Convention.   a)    In respect of the investigations the applicant complains that the Public Prosecutor's Office did not take sufficient account of his complaints that the investigating prosecutor attempted to beat him and that attempts were made to obtain money from him.   b)    The applicant complains that the charges brought against him on 4 February 1994 were communicated only after five months.   c)    The applicant complains that he had access to only three volumes of his case-file, which altogether comprised 12 files.   Moreover, as he did not duly receive the bill of indictment, he was unable effectively to defend himself.   d)    As regards evidence and witnesses, the applicant submits that the charges against him were based on graphological analyses although he had never been asked to give a handwriting sample.   He also complains that he was not shown the expert opinion.        The applicant further complains that the witnesses in his defence were not called.   He was not confronted with the prosecution witnesses. He was neither permitted to call accountancy experts, nor to produce further evidence himself.        The applicant also complains that his firms' documents were confiscated without any written report concerning their content being made.   PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION        The application was introduced on 28 June 1994 and registered on 23 May 1995.        On 27 November 1996 the Commission decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.        The Government's written observations were submitted on 8 April 1997 after the second extension of the time-limit fixed for that purpose.   On 22 April 1997 a copy of these observations was sent to the applicant who was invited to submit, before 10 June 1997, his observations in reply.   No such observations were received by the Commission.   Neither did the applicant request the Commission to extend the time-limit fixed.        On   23 January 1997 the applicant requested the Commission to grant him legal aid.   Accordingly, on 19 February 1997, he was provided by the Secretariat with the necessary forms and informed that the relevant documents should be returned by him before 19 March 1997.        On 25 February and 12 March 1997 the applicant wrote two letters to the Commission, both concerning his request for legal aid.   Neither the forms nor the supporting documents were returned by him.        In letters of 8 September and 3 November 1997, sent by registered mail and addressed on both occasions to his home address and the Wejherowo prison, the applicant was reminded that the time-limit for the submission of his observations in reply had expired on 10 June 1997.   He was further invited to state whether he intended to pursue his application and informed that, pursuant to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the Commission may strike his application   out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that he does not intend to pursue it.   The applicant did not react thereto.   REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission notes that the applicant did not react when invited to submit his observations in reply to the Government's observations.   It also observes that since 12 March 1997 he has not resumed his correspondence with the Commission.        Furthermore, on 8 September and 3 November 1997, two warning letters were sent to the applicant by registered mail.   Again, no response has been received.        In these circumstances, the Commission concludes, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention, that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition and that it is, therefore, no longer justified in continuing the examination of the petition.        The Commission also finds no reasons of a general character, affecting respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention, which require the further examination of the present application by virtue of Article 30 para. 1 in fine of the Convention.        For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,        DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.      M.-T. SCHOEPFER                               J.-C. GEUS       Secretary                                   President to the Second Chamber                       of the Second Chamber