FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 30061/05 by Michał WÓ JCIK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 March 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 28 July 2005,

Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together.

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Micha ł W ójcik, is a Polish national who was born in 1967 and lives in Mys ł owice. The applicant was unrepresented in the proceedings before the Court. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent , Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The circumstances of the case

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

On 14 August 2002 the Katowice District Court remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of robbery. An appeal by the applicant against this decision was dismissed on 4 September 2002 by the Katowice Regional Court .

The detention was subsequently prolonged on 4 November 2002, 10 February, 28 April, 6 August and 23 December 2003 , 22 March and 4 August 2004 , and 23 February , 20 April, 14 July and 28 September 2005 (extending the applicant ’ s detention until 8 January 2006). The courts repeatedly relied on the strong probability that the applicant had committed the offence s and thus on a real risk that he would receive a severe sentence . On that basis the courts presumed that t he applicant would obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings.

In the later decisions in 2005 the courts repeated the reasoning , finding that the grounds previously given for the detention were still valid. They noted in addition that the applicant had been charged with membership of a criminal gang and hence there was a reasonable risk of collusion.

The applicant unsuccessfully appealed against those decisions.

He also lodged requests for release from detention, which were dismissed by the decision of the Katowice Appeals Prosecutor of 30 January 2003 and of the Katowice Regional Court of 29 August 2005.

The applicant ’ s request for the application of a more lenient preventive measure in place of detention was dismissed by the Katowice Regional Court on 23 May 2005.

On 22 August 2006 the Katowice Regional Court lifted the applicant ’ s detention. The applicant was released under police supervision.

The proceedings are still pending before the first-instance court.

The applicant submits that he has been deprived of the opportunity to see his life partner while in custody.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant complains under Article 5 § 3 that the length of his p re ‑ trial detention was unreasonabl e .

2. He also alleges that the restrictions of his detention together with its considerable length give rise to a breach of his right to respect for his family life, in that he was deprived of the opportunity to see his life partner during that time.

THE LAW

On 14 September 2006 the application was communicated to the respondent Government. On 8 January 2007 the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the case were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 20 February 2007. On 27 February 2007 the applicant informed the Court that he was willing to reach a friendly settlement if he were offered an adequate amount of compensation. On 18 May 2007 the Government refused the Court ’ s proposal for a settlement of the case. Consequently, on 22 May 2007 the applicant was invited to submit his written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case by 3 July 2007. He failed to do so. On 26 October 2007, the Registry sent, by registered post, a letter addressed to the applicant ’ s private address in which he was again requested to reply to the Government ’ s observations and advised that his failure to respond by 16 November 2007 might result in the striking out of his application. The applicant did not reply.

The Court infers from the applicant ’ s continued silence that he does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, the Court considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case. In these circumstances, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President