CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 17 décembre 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 } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF78CE43F { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9C230781 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt } .s9DAED311 { width:4.99pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .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 } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s10F9E4BE { width:199.47pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 34447/97 by Marek SZOFER against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   December 2002 as a Chamber composed of   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mr   A. Pastor Ridruejo ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki, judges , and   Mr   M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 31 March 1996, 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 14 September 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant,   Marek Szofer, is a Polish national, who was born in 1961. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. 1.   Criminal proceedings against the applicant On 16 October 1995 the applicant was arrested. On 18 October 1995 he was brought before the Sieradz District Prosecutor and detained on remand on charges of forgery, committed in an organised group. On 8 November 1995 the Sieradz District Court upheld the applicant’s detention order. On 29 July 1996 the bill of indictment against the applicant was lodged with the Sieradz District Court. The first hearing in this case was scheduled for 3 October 1996. On 5 July 1999 the Sieradz District Court convicted the applicant of several counts of forgery and sentenced him to two years and eight months’ imprisonment. By a judgment of 21 March 2000 the Sieradz Regional Court confirmed this judgment. 2.   Intercepting of the applicant’s correspondence The following letters of the applicant to the Secretariat of the European Commission of Human Rights were subjected to automatic screening by the prison authorities and the prosecutor, provided for by law, as shown by relevant stamps on the envelopes: 24 July 1996, 6 November 1996, 7 and 15   November 1996, 2 December 1996.   Further, the application form submitted by the applicant to the Commission on 2   January 1997 has also been intercepted, opened and read. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under about the length of the criminal proceedings against him. The Court also noted that the applicant’s correspondence with the Convention organs was subjected to automatic screening, provided for by relevant Polish legislation, applicable at the material 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 18   December 2000. The applicant also failed to respond to the five further communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 22 October 2002.   Having regard to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes 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