FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 36711/04 by Wojciech HOŁOWIŃSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Giovanni Bonello , President, Lech Garlicki , Ljiljana Mijović , David Thór Björgvinsson , Ján Šikuta , Päivi Hirvelä , Mihai Poalelungi , judges,

and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 August 2004 ,

H aving regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention) ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Wojciech Hołowiński, is a Polish national who was born in 1968 and lives in Wrocław . He had been convicted in five criminal cases preceding the case which is the subject of the instant application.

A. The circumstances of the case

The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.

On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant was transferred, from another remand centre, to the Wroclaw Remand Centre, where he was held until, it would appear, January 2006.

On 14 September 2005 the Court received the applicant ’ s letter of 29 August 2005 . The letter bears the stamp “Censored ( Cenzurowano ) – Day ( Dnia ) – Signature ( Podpis )”. The empty spaces in the stamp are filled with an illegible signature and a hand-written date: “30.08.05”.

On the date when notice of the case was given to the Government the applicant was being held in Prison No. 1 in Wroc Å‚aw .

B. Events that took place after the case was communicated

On 7 December 2006 the Registrar sent a letter to the applicant, informing him that the Chamber to which the case had been allocated decided, under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court, to give notice of his application to the Polish Government as far as it concerned the complaint under Article 8 of the Convention. The applicant was also informed that the Chamber had declared the remainder of the application inadmissible.

On 21 February 2007 the Government submitted their written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. By letter of 8 March 2007 sent to Wroc Å‚aw Prison No. 1 the applicant was invited to file any written observations in reply to those of the Government by 20 April 2007.

On 15 March 2007 the Court ’ s letter together with a copy of the Government ’ s observations was returned to the Registry with a notice that the applicant had been released from prison.

On 20 April 2007 the Registrar sent to the applicant ’ s home address a letter containing a copy of the previous letter, the Government ’ s observations and a new instruction that the applicant should submit his observations and claims for just satisfaction by 1 June 2007. The applicant was also informed that his failure to observe the procedure fixed in the case might lead the Court to conclude that he no longer intended to pursue his application.

The applicant did not comply with the time-limit fixed for the submission of his observations. Nor did he ask the Cour t for an extension of that time ‑ limit.

On 29 November 2007 the Registry sent a registered letter to the applicant at the address of the Wrocław Prison. The applicant was informed that he had failed to observe the procedure fixed in the case. A copy of the previous letter was attached. The letter was returned by post with a notice that the applicant had been released.

On 10 January 2008 a similar letter with the same attachment was sent by registered mail to the applicant ’ s home address. The letter was not claimed by the applicant and was returned by post on 30 January 2008.

The applicant has not to date resumed correspondence with the Court in the instant case .

COMPLAI NTS

In respect of the monitoring of the applicant ’ s correspondence, the Court considered it appropriate to raise ex officio an issue of a possible breach of Article 8 of the Convention.

THE LAW

In respect of the monitoring of the applicant ’ s correspondence, the Court considered it appropriate to raise ex officio an issue of a possible breach of Article 8 of the Convention and, furthermore, considered that it could not, on the basis of the file, determine the admissibility of that complaint. Consequently, it decided to give notice of this matter to the respondent Government.

The respondent Government invited the Court to reject the application as inadmissible with in the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention on the ground that the applicant had failed to exhaust all available domestic remedies .

However, the Court, having regard to the events that occurred after notice of the application had been given to the Polish Government and after they had submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, considers that it does not have to deal further with the present application and that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied. 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; ...

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.”

The Court notes that the applicant failed to submit within the time-limit his reply to the observations filed by the respondent Government on 21 February 2007. The applicant also failed to respond to three further communications from the Registry of the Court, two of which had been sent by registered letters, the last one dated 10 January 2008.

In the circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application and th at it is no longer justified to continue the examination of his case. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons, 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 strike the rem a inder of the application out of its list of cases.

Fatoş Aracı Giovanni Bonello Deputy Registrar President