CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 23 octobre 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s925C5418 { width:8.33pt; display:inline-block } .s71E79153 { width:0.63pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s93B30DFA { width:207.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 38186/97 by Stanisław KACZMAREK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23   October 2001 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mr   L. Caflisch ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova , judges , and   Mr   V.   Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 22 August 1996 and registered on 13   October 1997, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having regard to the partial decision of 17 May 2001, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows:         THE FACTS The applicant, Stanisław Kaczmarek, was a Polish national, who was born in 1946 and lived in Kalisz, Poland. In the proceedings before the Court, he was not assisted by a lawyer. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Drzewicki, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 10 December 1995 the applicant was arrested by the police on suspicion of having committed fraud.   On 11 December 1995 the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor ( Prokurator Wojewódzki ) charged him with six counts of fraud, the continuing offence of receiving stolen goods, one count of unlawfully depriving a person of his liberty and the continuing offence of illegally possessing a fire-arm and ammunition.   On 12 December 1995 he was detained on remand On 21 March 1996, in the framework of other criminal proceedings, the Wrocław Regional Prosecutor charged the applicant with obtaining public property by fraud and ordered that in those proceedings he be detained on remand until 2 June 1996. The applicant was subsequently indicted on charges of fraud, unlawfully depriving a person of his liberty and illegally possessing a fire-arm and ammunition. He was tried before the Wrocław Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ). He was held in detention pending trial until 13 July 1998. On 17 May 2001 the Court gave notice of the applicant’s complaints under Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to the Polish Government.   It rejected the remainder of the application. A letter informing the applicant thereof was sent to him on 25 May 2001.   On 22 June 2001 that letter was returned to the Court’s Registry, along with a note stating that the applicant had died.   The respondent Government were informed of that fact on 27 July 2001 and submitted their observations on 27 August 2001. No person from among the members of the late applicant’s family has expressed a wish to continue the proceedings in his stead. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that, after having been arrested, he had not been brought promptly before a “judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power” and that his detention on remand had been excessive. He also complained that his trial had been inordinately lengthy, in breach of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. THE LAW On 22 June 2001 the Court was informed that the applicant had died.   The Polish Government confirmed that fact and invited the Court to strike the case out of the list, under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention which, in its relevant part, reads: “1.     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 ... (c)     for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the 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.” In the circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.   Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , which would require it to continue the proceedings in the present case by virtue of that Article. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President