FOURTH SECTION

FINAL DECISION

Application no. 35476/97 by Thomas KONRAD against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 October 2001 as a Chamber composed of

Mr G. Ress , President , Mr A. Pastor Ridruejo , Mr L. Caflisch , Mr J. Makarczyk , Mr I. Cabral Barreto , Mrs N. Vajić , Mr M. Pellonpää , judges , and Mr V. Berger , Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged with the European Commission of Human Rights on 29 July 1996 and registered on 27 March 1997,

Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,

Having regard to the partial decision of 16 November 2000,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Thomas Konrad , is a German national, who was born in 1964 and whose last permanent address was in Berlin. He was not assisted by a lawyer in the proceedings before the Court. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Drzewicki , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

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

On 25 December 1994 the applicant was brought before the Gdańsk District Prosecutor ( Prokurator Rejonowy ), charged with assault with intent to rob, entering Poland without leave to enter and forgery, and detained on remand.

On 27 June 1995 the Gdańsk District Prosecutor lodged a bill of indictment with the Gdańsk Regional Court ( Sąd Wojewódzki ).

On 27 June 1997 the applicant was released under police supervision. Shortly afterwards, he left for Germany.

The proceedings were stayed on 14 July 1998.

On 27 January 1999 the Registrar asked the applicant to supply information concerning the conduct of his trial. Since the applicant had not responded, on 20 April 2000 the Registrar sent another letter to him, asking whether he intended to pursue his petition and informing him of the terms of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.

The applicant replied on 3 June 2000. He supplied the information requested and stated that he wished to pursue his application.

On 16 November 2000 the Court gave notice of the complaints under Article 5 § 3 and Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to the Polish Government and declared the remainder of the application inadmissible. The applicant was informed thereof on 28 November 2000.

On 7 March 2001 the Registrar sent a letter to the applicant, informing him of the state of the proceedings in his case. That letter was later returned with a note stating that the delivery could not be effected because the applicant had left his place of residence.

On 19 March 2001 the Government filed their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. A copy thereof was sent to the applicant on 20 March and he was invited to submit his reply by 2 May 2001.

The applicant did not observe that time-limit. Neither did he ask for that term to be prolonged. In view of that, on 11 September 2001, the Registrar once again informed the applicant of the terms of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention and reminded that the Court might conclude that his failure to comply with the procedure fixed in his case showed that he no longer intended to pursue his petition.

The relevant letter was sent by registered mail with acknowledgement of receipt. It was returned with a note stating that the applicant had left his place of residence in Berlin without indicating a new address.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention that his detention on remand had been excessively long.

Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention he also complained that his right to have the criminal charge against him determined within a “reasonable time” had not been respected.

THE LAW

Relying on Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the length of his detention on remand. He further alleged a breach of Article 6 § 1 in that the criminal charge against him had not been determined within a “reasonable time”.

The respondent Government invited the Court to reject the application as being manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

However, the Court, having regard to the events that occurred after the notice of the application had been given to the Polish Government and after they had submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case, considers it does not have to deal substantively with the present application and that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied. That provision, in its relevant part, reads:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application;

...

However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”

In that context, 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”. Under that Rule, it is incumbent on the applicant to provide at least a minimum of information, namely his postal address, enabling the Court to conduct correspondence with him and to proceed with his petition.

In the present case not only did the applicant fail to comply with the time-limit for the submission of his pleading but, on account of his failure to indicate any address at which communication with him can be effected, he also made it impossible for the Court to continue the examination of his case.

In the circumstances, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application and that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of his case. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine, that would require it to continue the proceedings in the present case by virtue of that Article.

For these reasons, the Court unanimously

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

Vincent Berger Georg Ress Registrar President