FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

Application no. 49911/99 by Grazyna WALCZUK against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2003 as a Chamber composed of:

Sir Nicolas Bratza , President , Mr M. Pellonpää , Mrs V. Strážnická , Mr R. Maruste , Mr S. Pavlovschi , Mr L. Garlicki , Mr J. Borrego Borrego , judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 November 1998,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Grażyna Walczuk , is a Polish national, who was born in 1964 and lives in Siedlce , Poland. The respondent Government were represented by Mr K. Drzewicki , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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

In 1993 an investigation concerning the applicant and a certain Mr X was instituted. They were suspected of battery that allegedly had taken place on 29 December 1993.

On 28 March 1994 the Siedlce District Prosecutor ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) submitted to the Siedlce District Court ( SÄ…d Rejonowy ) a bill of indictment.

On 22 December 1994 the court convicted the applicant as indicted and sentenced her to six months’ imprisonment suspended for two years. She appealed.

On 20 April 1995 the Siedlce Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ) quashed the District Court’s judgment and remitted the case for re-examination.

On 29 November 1999 the Siedlce District Court gave judgment. It acquitted the applicant and Mr X.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained, inter alia , under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had exceeded a reasonable time.

THE LAW

In January 2002 the applicant informed the Court about her willingness to reach a friendly settlement with the Government. On 9 December 2002 and 17 June 2003 the registry requested the applicant, by registered mail, to provide further information about progress in her case. The applicant did not reply. The time-limit for her response expired on 7 July 2003.

Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 the application to be continued.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Michael O’Boyle Nicolas Bratza Registrar President