FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 12614/13 Gerard MALINOWSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 25 November 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Ledi Bianku , President, Paul Mahoney , Krzysztof Wojtyczek , judges,

and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 January 2013 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Gerard Malinowski , is a Polish national, who was born in 1981 and lives in Ł om ż a .

The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

A. The circumstances of the case

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

On 15 October 2010 the applicant was arrested on suspicion of committing a number of offences connected with handling of drugs and psychoactive substances in an organised criminal group.

On 1 7 October 2010 the Rzeszów District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded the applicant in custody for three months . The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had comm itted the offences in question and on the reasonable risk that the applicant would obstruct the proceedings. The court also referred to the likelihood of a heavy prison sentence being imposed on the applicant after conviction.

The applicant ’ s detention on remand was extended by the Rzeszów Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) on 13 January 2011 , upheld on appeal by the Rzeszów Court of Appeal ( Sąd Apelacyjny ) on 1 February 20 11, on 11 April 2011 upheld by the Court of Appeal on 28 April 2011 and on 11 July 2011.

Subsequently, on 6 October 2011 the detention was extended by the Rzeszów Court of Appeal.

On 7 November 20 11 a bill of indictment against the applicant and several other co-accused was lodged with the Zamo ść Regional Court (case no . I I K 71/11 ).

On 23 November 2011 the Zamo ść Regional Court extended the applicant ’ s detention for further three months until 29 February 2012 and, on 13 February 2012, until 31 May 2012. Subsequently, the preventive measure was extended on 24 May and on 24 August 2012.

Since the applicant ’ s detention was approaching the statutory time-limit of 2 years, on 27 September 2012 a further extension was decided by the Lublin Court of Appeal. After that the Court of Appeal extended the applicant ’ s detention on 28 December 2012 (upheld on 16 January 2013), on 27 March 2013 (upheld on 29 April 2013) and on 26 June 2013 when it was decided to hold the applicant in detention until 15 October 2013.

The most recent decision extending the applicant ’ s detention until 7 December 2013 was given by the Lublin Court of Appeal on 2 October 2013.

The applicant appealed.

On 5 November 2013 the Lublin Court of Appeal amended the challenged decision and held that the applicant could be released upon payment of bail in the amount of 40,000 Polish zlotys (PLN), (approximately 9,550 euros (EUR) at the material time). The court found that this preventive measure would enable securing the proper conduct of the proceedings. It failed, however, to explain in detail the reasons behind this decision. Since this decision was given on appeal, no further appeal is available to the applicant.

In their decisions the courts relied on the original grounds for the applicant ’ s detention . The courts emphasised the need to apprehend other members of the criminal group and to obtain additional evidence supporting the case against the applicant. In the courts ’ view, the applicant, if released, would try to obstruct the proceedings by passing vital information about the preliminary proceedings onto the other members of the criminal group and by influencing witnesses. The courts concluded that in the context of the applicant ’ s case, which concerned organised crime, detention on remand remained the only security measure to guarantee the proper conduct of the proceedings.

T he criminal proceedings against the applicant are currently pending .

On 13 January 2014 the Court received information from the Zamo ść Detention Centre that the applicant had been released from detention on 26 November 2013.

B. Relevant domestic law and practice

The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre ‑ trial detention ( tymczasowe aresztowanie ), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other, so-called “preventive measures” ( Å›rodki zapobiegawcze ) are stated in the Court ’ s judgments in the cases of GoÅ‚ek v. Poland , no. 31330/02, §§ 27 ‑ 33, 25 April 2006 and Celejewski v. Poland , no. 17584/04, §§ 22 ‑ 23, 4 May 2006 .

COMPLAINT

The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.

THE LAW

By letter dated 30 April 2014 the Government ’ s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit his claims for just satisfaction in reply by 11 June 2014 .

By letter dated 20 August 2014 , sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his just-satisfaction claims had expired on 11 June 2014 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant was instructed of a new time-limit for submission of his just-satisfaction claims set for 17 September 2014. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The acknowledgement of receipt of this letter was signed on 25 August 2014 by the appl icant ’ s mother. However, no response has been received.

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) 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 continued examination of the case.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

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

FatoÅŸ Aracı Ledi Bianku              Deputy Registrar President