CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 14 septembre 2004

.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 } .sB1F92847 { width:25.02pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; 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 } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s39A7D870 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s4FFB5796 { width:198.18pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 2965/02 by Sławomir KOZIEŁ against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14   September 2004 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego     Mrs   E. Fura-Sandström, judges , and Mr M. O'Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 December 2001, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government; Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Sławomir Kozieł, was a Polish national, who was born in 1959 and lived in Lublin, Poland. On 2 December 1999 the Opole Lubelskie District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) ordered that the applicant be remanded in custody in view of the reasonable suspicion that he had committed fraud. Subsequently, the applicant made several unsuccessful applications for release and appealed, likewise unsuccessfully, against repeated refusals to release him. He maintained that the charge against him was not supported by any convincing evidence and that, given his bad health, detention was putting a severe strain on him. On 2 September 2002 the District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 4 years' imprisonment. The applicant submitted that during his detention all his correspondence had been censored by the authorities. On 5 March 2002 the Registry sent to the applicant a letter in reply to his first letter setting out his Convention claims. That letter was delivered to the applicant after having been controlled by the authorities. The Court's envelope bears two red stamps that read “Censored” ( “ocenzurowano” ). One of those stamps was put on the outside and another on the inside. There are two other stamps that read: “Detention Centre. Received on 11 March 2002.” ( “Areszt Śledczy. Otrzymano 11 marca 2002” ) and “Detention Centre. Received on 19 March 2002” ( “Areszt Śledczy. Otrzymano 19   marca 2002” ). On 9 July 2004 the Registrar's letter of 7 May 2004, informing the applicant that notice had been given of his application to the Polish Government under Rule 54 § 2(b) of the Rules of Court, was returned to the Registry with a note: “returned to the sender, the addressee died”. The Government were informed of that fact. On 13 August 2004 they produced the applicant's death certificate, stating that he had died on 29   October 2003. They asked the Court to strike the application out of its list of cases. COMPLAINTS Without invoking any provision of the Convention, the applicant complained about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention and the fact that during his detention his correspondence had been censored. THE LAW The Court takes note of the fact that the applicant had died on 29 October 2003 and that since then no member of his family has expressed a wish to continue the proceedings before the Court in his stead. It further notes that the Government have invited it to apply Article 37 of the Convention. That provision, 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 (a)     the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or (b)     the matter has been resolved; or (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 and that it should be struck out of its list of cases under Article 37 § 1(c). Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , that would require it to continue the proceedings by virtue of that provision. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Michael O'Boyle   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President