CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 20 mai 2008

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s401C450A { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s11869A80 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s68A4A370 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s40269D5B { width:34.93pt; display:inline-block } .sDAF16287 { width:162.63pt; display:inline-block } .sF2E32F9B { width:36.61pt; display:inline-block } .s5F32E900 { width:208.31pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 49144/06 by Maciej FRANKIEWICZ against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 20   May 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 November 2006, 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, Mr Maciej Frankiewicz, is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Elbląg. The Polish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr   J.Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. It appears that the applicant was arrested by the police on 29 October 2002 and subsequently detained on remand by the Gdańsk Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ). The court referred to the reasonable suspicion that the applicant has committed theft and armed robbery, the severity of the sentence and the risk that the applicant might obstruct the proper conduct of the investigation. In the course of the investigation the applicant’s pre-trial detention was prolonged by the Gdańsk Regional Court several times. The court referred to the complexity of the case and to the likelihood that the applicant committed the serious offences with which he had been charged and would be given a term of imprisonment. It relied also on the need to ensure a conclusion to the investigation. On 20 November 2003 the Gdańsk Regional Prosecutor ( Prokurator Okręgowy ) indicted the applicant on charges of armed robbery, fraud and theft committed while acting in an organised criminal gang. In the course of the trial the applicant’s detention was prolonged several times by the Gdańsk Regional Court and the Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ). The courts relied on the grounds mentioned above. They also relied on the significant number of witnesses who had to give evidence in the case and on the likelihood that the accused would tamper with evidence. On 11 February 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Court decided that all the accused should be isolated. On 12 February 2004 the Director of the Detention Centre lodged an application with the court asking for the withdrawal of the isolation order, at least in respect of some of the detainees. On 11 March 2004 the Regional Court recommended that the detainees should be kept in isolation until their evidence had been heard. On 27 October, 3 November and 7 December 2004 the applicant lodged unsuccessful applications with the Gdańsk Regional Court for the right to see his partner and his sister without being separated by a glass panel.                                                On 10 May 2006 the applicant made an application for his detention to be lifted or replaced by another preventive measure. He referred to the fact that he had pleaded guilty, that he had not been convicted before and that he had been disciplined during his pre-trial detention. On 16 May 2006 the Regional Court dismissed the application. On 23   May 2006 the applicant appealed, likewise unsuccessfully. On 15 November 2006 the Gdańsk Regional Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to 13 years’ imprisonment. The applicant lodged a notice of appeal. The case is pending. B.     Relevant domestic law and practice The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre ‑ trial detention ( aresztowanie tymczasowe ), the grounds for its prolongation, release from detention and rules governing other, so ‑ called “preventive measures” ( środki zapobiegawcze ) are summarised in several judgments concerning similar cases (see, among others, Gołek v.   Poland , no.   31330/02, §§ 27-33, 25 April 2006; Celejewski v. Poland , no.   17584/04, §§   22-23, 4   August 2006). COMPLAINTS 1. The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his pre-trial detention has been excessively lengthy. 2. Without invoking any provision of the Convention he complained about the Gdańsk Regional Court’s refusal to allow him to see his family without being separated by a glass panel. THE LAW By letter dated 31 January 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit in reply his observations together with any claims for just satisfaction by 13   March 2008. On 10 February 2008 the applicant informed the Court that he wished to withdraw the application. The Government were informed about the applicant’s decision and had no objection. The Court notes that the applicant no longer wishes to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. 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 continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President