CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 20 mai 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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                           Application No. 31393/96                       by Dariusz KARPINSKI                       against Poland          The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 20 May 1998, the following members being present:              MM     J.-C. GEUS, President                  M.A. NOWICKI                  G. JÖRUNDSSON                  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 30 September 1995 by Dariusz KARPINSKI against Poland and registered on 6 May 1996 under file No. 31393/96;        Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;        Having deliberated;        Decides as follows:     THE FACTS        The applicant, a Polish citizen born in 1962, is an artist residing in Warsaw, Poland.        The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.   Particular circumstances of the case:        On 25 February 1995 the applicant was arrested by police on suspicion that he had committed a common assault of a hooligan character, i.e. an offence specified in Section 182 para. 1 read together with Section 59 of the Criminal Code.   Since, according to Section 447 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the offence in question could be tried summarily, the same day the applicant was charged with this offence and questioned by a policeman, who subsequently prepared a charge sheet.   Later the same day the applicant was brought to the Warsaw District Court (S*d Rejonowy) for the main trial.        When the policeman was questioning the applicant, the latter claimed that he was unable to prepare his defence and defend himself, in particular as the main trial was to be held the same day.   During the hearing before the court the applicant again requested the presiding judge to grant him legal assistance, submitting that he was unable to prepare his defence properly.   The judge dismissed the request and proceeded with the trial.        The court heard evidence from two injured persons involved in the incident in issue and gave judgment.   It convicted the applicant of two counts of common assault of a hooligan character and sentenced him to a fine of PLN 1000.        On 24 April 1995 the applicant appealed against this judgment. Apparently, he submitted his appeal outside the time-limit prescribed by law as, on 14 June 1995, the Warsaw District Court granted him retrospective leave to appeal out of time.        On 14 July 1995 an appellate hearing was held before the Warsaw Regional Court (S*d Wojewódzki).   The applicant was represented by a lawyer of his choice.   The same day the court upheld the judgment of the court of first instance.        On 30 September 1995 the applicant introduced his complaints to the Commission.        In his letter of 1 April 1998 he informed the Commission that he wished to withdraw his application.                     Relevant domestic law and practice:        Section 182 para. 1 of the Criminal Code states:        "Anyone who assaults another person or infringes upon his      physical integrity in any other way but without causing any, or      any evident, bruising is liable up to one year's imprisonment,      to restriction of personal liberty or to a fine."      Section 59 of the Criminal Code provides:        "When a person has committed a premeditated offence of      hooliganism, the court shall impose a sentence of imprisonment      of not less than one-and-a-half times the minimum sentence      applicable."        Section 120 para. 14 of the Criminal Code provides that an offence shall be regarded as being of a hooligan character (o charakterze chuliganskim) if the perpetrator acts in public and without any justifiable motive or with a manifestly unjustified one, thus demonstrating flagrant contempt for law and order.        Under Section 447 of the Code of Criminal Procedure all offenses of a hooligan character are tried summarily, in the so-called "expedited proceedings" (tryb przyspieszony), which means that the main trial must commence within forty-eight hours from the commission of the offence.     COMPLAINTS        The applicant complains that he did not have a fair trial, in particular in view of the fact that his conviction was entirely based on evidence from injured persons.        He further submits that, because the trial was - unnecessarily - held immediately, he did not have adequate time to prepare his defence.        The applicant complains, lastly, that the authorities arbitrarily refused to grant him legal assistance.        He does not invoke any specific provision of the Convention in support of his complaints.     REASONS FOR THE DECISION        The Commission notes that in his letter of 1 April 1998 the applicant stated that he wished to withdraw his application.        In these circumstances, the Commission, having regard to the fact that the applicant does not intend to pursue his petition, concludes, in accordance with Article 30 para. 1 (a) and (c) of the Convention, that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of this application.        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 complaints 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