FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 8204/04 by Karol NEUMANN against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10 June 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Nicolas Bratza , President, Lech Garlicki , Ljiljana Mijović , David Thór Björgvinsson , Ján Šikuta , Päivi Hirvelä , Ledi Bianku , judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 February 2004,

Having regard to the Court ’ s decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention) ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Karol Neumann, is a Polish national who was born in 1978 and lives in Radom . The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 3 September 2002 the Radom District Court convicted the applicant of drunken driving and sentenced him to twelve months ’ imprisonment suspended on probation.

1. The criminal pr oceedings against the applicant

The applicant was arrested on 6 September 2003. On 8 September 2003 the Radom District Court ordered his detention on remand on suspicion of fraud.

On 26 February 2004 the prosecution filed a bill of indictment with the Radom District Court. On 4 February 2005 the Radom District Court convicted the applicant as charged. The applicant appealed.

On 23 June 2005 the Radom Regional Court upheld the conviction, but reduced the applicant ’ s sentence to three and a half years ’ imprisonment. Throughout the trial and appeal proceedings the applicant was represented by a legal-aid counsel. The applicant lodged a notice of cassation appeal.

On 27 July 2005 the applicant requested the Regional Court to appoint a new legal-aid lawyer with a view to filing a cassation appeal. By a letter of 3 August 2005 the Regional Court refused his application without specifying any reasons for it.

On 8 September 2005 the written reasons for the Regional Court ’ s judgment were served on the applicant. He was instructed that he could file a cassation appeal which had to be prepared by a lawyer within 30 days from the date on which the written reasons had been served.

2. The alleged monitoring of the applicant ’ s correspondence

a) The envelope in which the Registry ’ s letter of 8 March 2004 was sent to the applicant bears the following stamps: “the Radom Detention Centre 19 Mar[ ch ] 2004” and “the Radom Detention Centre 02 April 2004”. The latter stamp is accompanied by a hand-written note “D[ istrict ] C[ ourt ] Radom II K 143/04”. The envelope also bears a hand-written note by the applicant: “rec.[ eived ] 6.04.2004”.

b) The envelope in which the Registry ’ s letter of 20 October 2004 was sent to the applicant bears the following stamps: “the Radom Detention Centre 2004-10-25” and “the Radom Detention Centre 2004-11-05”. The latter stamp is accompanied by a hand-written note in pencil “D[ istrict ] C[ ourt ] R-m”. It is further accompanied by a stamp “M.K. the Radom District Court Judge” and a hand-written note “for the addressee 4.XI.04” with an illegible signature. The envelope also bears a hand-written note by the applicant: “received 8.XI.2004”.

B. Events that took place after the case was communicated

On 17 September 2007 the Registrar sent a letter to the applicant, informing him that the Court had decided to give notice of his application to the Polish Government. On 12 December 2007 the Registry sent another letter to the applicant, to the detention centre where the applicant had been detained. The letter was returned on 5 February 2008 with a note “detainee released from prison”. Since the Government failed to submit their written observations on the admissibility and merits, on 11 February 2008 the applicant was invited to file any pleadings by 24 March 2008. The letter was sent by registered mail with an acknowledgment of receipt to the applicant ’ s home address, indicated by the prison authorities and also by the applicant himself in the application form. On 21 February 2008 the letter was returned as undelivered with an indication that the recipient had moved to a new address.

The applicant has not to date resumed his correspondence with the Court.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complained under Article s 6 § 1 and 17 of the Convention that he had not had a fair trial.

2. Relying on Article 13 of the Conventio n and Article 2 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention, the applicant complained that the court twice refused his application to appoint a legal-aid lawyer.

3. The applicant also alleged a violation of Article 4 of Protocol No. 7 to the Convention.

4. The applicant further complained that his correspondence with the Court had been censored and delayed.

THE LAW

Having regard to the events that occurred after the notice of the application had been given to the Polish Government, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied.

The Court also recalls that, pursuant to Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court, “applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application”. In this respect the Court notes that the applicant has failed to respond to communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was sent by a registered letter dated 11 February 2008. Nor has he informed the Court of his change of address.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing 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