CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 15 mars 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s1E56514F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; 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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE0372AB5 { width:21.8pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sCD369DB { width:21.33pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s70FAF3C6 { width:22.01pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s793A87F1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:138pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sBBB733A2 { margin-top:138pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s984A15CA { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Application no. 33086/02 by Zygmunt DOLNY against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   March 2005 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   J. Casadevall ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego, judges , and Mr M. O'Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 August 2002, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Zygmunt Dolny, is a Polish national who was born in 1965 and lives in Wrocław, Poland. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The applicant's detention on remand On 15 February 2001 the applicant was arrested by the police. On 16   February 2001 the Oława District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded the applicant in custody on charges of dealing in stolen goods and insurance fraud. It considered that the applicant's detention was justified by the evidence collected in his case and the heavy sentence the applicant could receive. Furthermore, there existed the danger of pressure being brought to bear on witnesses. Finally, the court pointed out that the applicant was a habitual offender. Subsequently, the applicant's detention was extended by the Oława District Court on 30 April, 11 July and 11 September 2001. On 7 November 2001 the prosecution service filed with the Oława District Court a bill of indictment against the applicant. On 15 February 2002 the Wrocław District Court extended the applicant's pre-trial detention until 15 May 2002. The hearings scheduled for 8 March and 2 April 2001 were cancelled. On 15 May and 14 August 2002 the Wrocław District Court further extended the applicant's detention. It repeated the grounds for detention given in the previous decisions. The applicant's numerous applications for release and his appeals against the detention decisions were to no avail. On 13 November 2002 the Wrocław District Court extended the applicant's pre-trial detention until 14 February 2003. On 14 February 2003 the applicant was released from detention. The criminal proceedings against the applicant are pending. 2.     The monitoring of the applicant's correspondence The applicant's first letter to the Court dated 29 July 2002 bears a stamp “censored” ( cenzurowano ). The envelope in which the letter was delivered bears the following stamps: 1.   Detention Center 29.07.2002 Wrocław 1   Świebodzka st. ( Areszt Śledczy 29.07.2002, Wrocław ul. Świebodzka 1 ) and 2.   “censored” ( cenzurowano ). The letter was posted on 22   August 2002 and delivered to the Court on 2 September 2002. On 5 December 2002 the Court received the applicant's application form. The last page of the form bears a stamp: “censored” ( cenzurowano ). The envelope in which the application form was delivered bears the following stamps: 1.   “252, 21 Nov. 2002, register number 434/02” (252, 21 list.   2002, nr   ewid.   434/02) and 2.   “censored” ( cenzurowano ). The applicant's letter of 23 January 2003 delivered on 17   February 2003 bears a stamp “censored” (cenzurowano). The envelope in which it was delivered bears the same stamp and in addition it is stamped: “252, 23   Jan. 2003, register number 434/02” ( 252 23 Sty. 2003, nr ewid. 434/02 ). The applicant submitted photocopies of the Court's letter of 6   January 2003 and the envelope in which it was mailed. The letter and the envelope bear a stamp “censored” ( cenzurowano ). COMPLAINTS The Court raised ex officio a complaint under Articles 8 and 34 of the Convention on account of monitoring of the applicant's correspondence. The applicant further complained about the unreasonable length of his pre-trial detention. THE LAW On 31 March 2004 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. On 29 July 2004 the Government's observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received. The applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 27   August 2004, however, he failed to do so. Nor did he ask the Court for an extension of the time-limit. Two registered letters send on 29 October 2004 to the addresses provided by the applicant reminded him that, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court might at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike the case out of its list of cases if the circumstances of the case indicated that the applicant did not intend to pursue his application. Both letters were returned undelivered. Having regard to the applicant's failure to communicate with the Court, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the protocols thereto does not require it to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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