FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 632/03 by Radosł aw MAZAK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr J. Casadevall , Mr G. Bonello , Mr K. Traja , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Ms L. Mijović , judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 November 2002,

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 formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Radosł aw Mazak , is a Polish national who was born in 1971 and lives in Pszczyna . The Polish Government (“the 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 parties, may be summarised as follows.

1. The criminal proceedings against the applicant

The applicant was arrested on 30 November 2001 . On 1 December 2001 the Pszczyna District Court ordered his detention on remand until 29 February 2002 on suspicion of numerous counts of fraud and possession of drugs. It held that there was a risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings by exerting pressure on witnesses. It further had regard to the likelihood that the applicant would be given a heavy sentence.

During the investigation and the trial the District Court prolonged the applicant ’ s detention several times. The relevant decisions were given on 22 February 2002 (prolonging his detention until 28 May 2002), on 2 3 May 2002 (extending his detention up to 28 August 2002) and on 21 August 2002 ( ordering his continued detention until 28 November 2002 ). The District Court relied, in addition to the grounds previously invoked, on the need to obtain further evidence and the fact that the applicant had been previously convicted. It appears that the applicant ’ s detention was prolonged on further unspecified dates.

On an unspecified date during the investigation the press officer of the Pszczyna police published an article in a local newspaper which described the charges against an unidentified resident of Pszczyna and his modus operandi .

On 28 June 2002 the Pszczyna District Prosecutor filed a bill of indictment with the District Court. The applicant was charged with numerous counts of fraud and perjury, and possession of drugs.

On 27 October 2003 the District Court prolonged the applicant ’ s detention until 28 December 2003 .

On 19 November 2003 the District Court convicted the applicant and sentenced him to a period of imprisonment. The applicant appealed against that judgment. On 28 July 2004 the Katowice Regional Court upheld the first-instance judgment. The applicant did not produce copies of those judgments. It appears that the applicant filed a cassation appeal with the Supreme Court and that the proceedings are pending.

Between 3 January 2002 and 3 July 2002, and also between 11 December 2002 and 11 December 2003 the applicant served a prison sentence which had been imposed on him in another set of proceedings.

2. The alleged censorship of the applicant ’ s correspondence

On 9 January 2003 the Pszczyna District Court sent a letter to the applicant in reply to his query. The applicant was informed that his correspondence was being sent from the Gliwice Detention Centre to the District Court so that its content could be checked by a judge. The applicant was further informed that his correspondence was opened and read by the judge, and subsequently sealed and resent to the addressees.

a) The envelope in which the applicant ’ s letter dated 3 January 2003 was sent to the Court from the Gliwice Detention Centre bears a hand-written note in pencil “D[ istrict ] C[ ourt ] Pszczyna ”. It also bears a stamp “SW-128” and a hand-written date “06.01.2003”. That letter, according to the postal stamp, was posted on 10 January 2003 . It reached the Court on 20 January 2003. It appears that the envelope had been opened and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape.

b) The envelope in which the applicant ’ s application form dated 17 November 2003 was sent to the Court from the Gliwice Detention Centre bears a scarcely legible hand-written note in pencil “District Court I Pszczyna ”. It also bears a stamp with a date “19 November 2003” and an illegible signature. That letter, according to the postal stamp, was posted on 2 December 2003 . It reached the Court on 11 December 2003 . It appears that the envelope had been opened and subsequently resealed with adhesive tape.

c) The applicant ’ s letter dated 30 April 2003 to his girlfriend appears to have been censored. Parts of that letter were blanked out.

COMPLAINTS

1. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 5 § 3 of the Convention on account of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.

2. The applicant also complained under Article 8 of the Convention about censorship of his correspondence.

3. He further complained under Article 12 of the Convention that the Pszczyna District Court and the director of the Gliwice Detention Centre had refused his three requests for permission to get married.

4. The applicant also alleged that police had planted drugs in his flat and that that fact had served as a ground for remanding him in custody. He also submitted that during the investigation against him the press officer of the Pszczyna police had published an article in a local newspaper which had contained untruthful information. Further, he alleged that he had not been given access to the case file of the proceedings during the trial. Lastly, he submitted that his various criminal complaints against private individuals, prosecutors, police officers and prison guards had not been examined properly and promptly. He relied on Articles 3, 5 § 1, 6 § 1, 6 § 3, 9, 10 and 13 of the Convention.

THE LAW

On 5 February 2007 the Court received the following declaration from the Agent of the Government:

“I declare that the Government of Poland offer to pay PLN 2,000 (two thousand Polish zlotys) to Mr Rados ła w Mazak with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the event of failure to pay this sum within the said three-month period, the Government undertake to pay simple interest on it, from expiry of that period until settlement, at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points. The payment will constitute the final resolution of the case. ”

On 18 October 2007 the Court received the following declaration signed by the applicant:

“ I, Radosław Mazak , note that the Government of Poland are prepared to pay me the sum of PLN 2,000 (two thousand Polish zlotys) with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the above-mentioned case pending before the European Court of Human Rights.

This sum, which is to cover any pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as well as costs and expenses, will be payable within three months from the date of notification of the decision taken by the Court pursuant to Article 37 § 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. From the expiry of the above-mentioned three months until settlement simple interest shall be payable on the above amount at a rate equal to the marginal lending rate of the European Central Bank during the default period plus three percentage points.

I accept the proposal and waive any further claims against Poland in respect of the facts giving rise to this application. I declare that this constitutes a final resolution of the case. ”

The Court takes note of the agreement reached between the parties and considers that the matter has been resolved (Article 37 § 1 (b) 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 examination of t he application to be continued. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

T.L. Early Nicolas Bratza Registrar President