FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

Application no. 5648/02 by Robert JÄ„KALSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section) , sitting on 17 June 2003 as a Chamber composed of

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

Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 March 2001 and registered on 8 February 2002,

Having regard to the partial decision of 23 April 2002,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Robert Jąkalski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1980 and resides in Kraków, Poland.

On 31 July 1999 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of having committed the offences of robbery and burglary.

On 4 August 1999 the Gliwice District Prosecutor ( Prokurator Rejonowy ) charged the applicant with robbery and burglary, and detained him on remand until 31 October 1999. That decision was based on the suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences in question, the serious nature of these offences and the risk that he might obstruct the proper conduct of the proceedings if released.

On 28 September 1999 a bill of indictment was lodged with the Katowice Regional Court ( S ą d Okręgowy ).

On 11 October 1999, the Katowice Regional Court prolonged the applicant’s detention on remand until 31 March 2000. The court held that there was a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences in question and stressed the serious nature of the charges against him.

On 26 November 1999 the applicant filed an application for release with the Katowice Regional Court. He referred to his difficult family situation, in particular his mother’s poor state of health and lack of financial means. On 17 January 2000 the Katowice Regional Court rejected that application. It found that the relevant evidence supported a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences. The court stressed the serious nature of the offences and considered that he should be kept in custody in view of the need to ensure the proper course of the trial. The court did not find that the applicant’s mother’s situation was so serious as to justify his release under Article 259 § 1 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

On 7 February 2000 the applicant filed a subsequent request for release. On 28 February 2000 the court rejected his application in view of the existence of a reasonable suspicion that he had committed the offences. As to the applicant’s family situation, the court repeated its previous reasoning.

The first hearing on the merits was held on 21 March 2000. The court heard evidence from the applicant, his co-defendant and from witnesses. It also prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 June 2000. The court held that there was a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed the offences and again stressed their grave nature. The Katowice Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) upheld this decision and the reasons therefor on 12 April 2000.

A hearing listed for 30 May 2000 was adjourned.

On 26 June 2000 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 September 2000, repeating the reasons referred to in its decision of 21 March 2000. The applicant appealed. On 2 August 2000 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

A hearing listed for 19 September 2000 was adjourned at the applicant’s co-defendant’s request.

On 25 September 2000 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 December 2000. The court reiterated the grounds previously given for keeping the applicant in custody.

On 2 November 2000 the case was assigned to a new panel of judges. The trial continued on 12 December 2000. A hearing listed for 18 December 2000 was adjourned.

On 27 December 2000 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 30 March 2001. It considered that there was a risk of his absconding. He appealed against this decision. On 7 March 2001 the Katowice Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

The next hearing took place on 21 February 2001. On that day the court stayed the proceedings until 16 March 2001 because most of the witnesses failed to appear.

The next hearing took place on 16 March 2001. In the course of the hearing the applicant again asked the court to release him. The court dismissed his request and prolonged his detention until 30 April 2001. The court reiterated the grounds previously given for keeping him in custody. On the same day the court stayed the proceedings until 5 April 2001.

At the hearing on 5 April 2001 the court heard witnesses and adjourned the trial as the applicant asked for a change to be made to the composition of the court.

The next hearing took place on 18 April 2001. The court stayed the proceedings until 16 May 2001 and prolonged the applicant’s detention until 20 May 2001. The court observed that the applicant was suspected of serious offences and that there was a risk of collusion.

On 25 April 2001, on the applicant’s appeal, the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld that decision.

At the hearing on 15 May 2001 the court prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 July 2001. The court reiterated the grounds previously given for his detention. On 13 June 2001 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld that decision and the reasons therefor.

On 11 July 2001 the Katowice Court of Appeal prolonged the applicant’s detention until 31 October 2001. The applicant appealed. On 14 August 2001 the Katowice Court of Appeal upheld that decision. It appears that the criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending before the court of first instance.

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that the length of his detention on remand had exceeded a “reasonable time” within the meaning of this provision.

THE LAW

The Court notes that the applicant failed to submit within the time-limit his reply to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 3 September 2002. The applicant also failed to respond to further communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 11 March 2003.

Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes 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