CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 mars 2002

.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 } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s84582066 { width:4.99pt; display:inline-block } .s859E34A4 { width:11.02pt; 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 } .s4B773175 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s888E4C48 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:31.75pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-20.15pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s2452CEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .sA3B71503 { width:197.8pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 30385/96 by Leszek WĘGLARZ against Poland The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 19 March 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mr   J. Makarczyk ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mrs   E. Palm , judges , and   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 August 1995, 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Leszek Węglarz, is a Polish national, who was born in 1948. He resides in Swarzędz.   A.     The circumstances of the case On 14 January 1993 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having run banking business without required authorisation and of embezzlement of funds in a sum of 15 million Polish zlotys (old). On the same day the   Poznań District Prosecutor remanded him in custody. On 25 January 1994 the Poznań District Court upheld the detention order on the ground that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed a serious crime. On 8 February 1994 the Poznań District Prosecutor prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 14 April 1994. On 25 February 1994 the Poznań District Court upheld this decision. On 2 April 1994 the Poznań Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 14 July 1994. On 17 May 1994 the applicant’s lawyer lodged a request to quash the detention order. This request was dismissed by the Poznań District Prosecutor on 19 May 1994. On 9 June 1994 the Poznań Regional Prosecutor upheld the decision on the grounds that the need to maintain the detention had not ceased to exist. On 12 July 1994 the Poznań District Court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 14 September 1994. On 27 July 1994 the Poznań Regional Court upheld the Poznań District Court decision of 12 July 1994. On 1 September 1994 the Poznań District Prosecutor dismissed the applicant’s request to have the investigation completed by questioning certain persons. On 13 September 1994 the Poznań District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Poznań District Court. On 27 September 1994 the Poznań District Court dismissed the applicant’s request to have the detention order quashed.   On 12 October 1994 the Poznań Regional Court upheld this decision. On 8 December 1994 a hearing in the applicant’s case was held before the Poznań District Court. On 9 December 1994 the Poznań District Court dismissed his request to be released or to have the detention replaced by a more lenient preventive measure. On 11 December 1994 the applicant requested the Poznań District Court to release him. On 26 January 1995 the Poznań District Court refused. The applicant lodged an appeal against this decision. On 8 February 1995 the Poznań Regional Court upheld the contested decision. On 24 April 1995 the Poznań District Court dismissed the applicant’s further request for release. On 11   May 1995 the Poznań District Court refused again to release the applicant. On 24 May 1995 the Poznań Regional Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against this decision. On 29 June 1995 and 19 October 1995   the Poznań District Court refused to release the applicant. On 12 July 1995 and 3 November 1995, respectively, these decisions were upheld by the Poznań Regional Court. On 18 and 30 December 1995 and on 12 April 1996 the Poznań District Court again refused to release the applicant. On 7 August 1996 the applicant’s further request to quash the detention order was dismissed by the District Court. On 9 October 1996 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s subsequent request for release in view that there was a reasonable risk that the applicant would abscond. On 6 November 1996 the court dismissed the applicant’s appeal. On 26 October 1996 the Poznań District Court convicted the applicant of embezzlement and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment, holding that the period from 14 January 1994 until 14 November 1994 and from 24   December 1994 of the applicant’s detention on remand should be deducted from the sentence. On 25 February 1997 the applicant appealed against the first instance judgment to the Poznań Regional Court. On 3 March 1997 the Poznań District Prosecutor also lodged an appeal against the first-instance judgment. On 26 June 1997 the Poznań Regional Court quashed partially the first instance judgement and ordered the case to be re-examined in this part. On the same day the court lifted the applicant’s detention on remand and replaced it by police supervision. Apparently later a cassation appeal against the second-instance judgment was lodged with the Supreme Court. COMPLAINTS The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand exceeded a “reasonable time". He further complains, invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention,   that the criminal proceedings instituted against him lasted for an unreasonably long time. THE LAW The Court notes that the applicant failed to submit within the time-limit his reply to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 2   December 1999. The applicant also failed to respond to the further communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 10 October 2001.   Having regard to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, the Court notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 examination of the application to be continued. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President