FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 10861/13 Mariusz JANKOWSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 4 November 2014 as a Committee composed of:

George Nicolaou , President, Zdravka Kalaydjieva , Faris Vehabović , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 January 2013 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Mariusz Jankowski , is a Polish national, who was born in 1988 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 drugs and psychoactive substances in an organised criminal group.

On 17 October 2010 the Rzeszów District Court ( Sąd Rejonowy ) remanded the applicant in custody for thre e months. The court relied on a reasonable suspicion that the applicant had committed 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 appealed against this decision.

On 16 November 2010 the Rzeszów Regional Court ( Sąd Okręgowy ) upheld the challenged decision. It held, among other things, that the probability that the applicant had committed the offences with which he had been charged was confirmed by anonymous witnesses.

The applicant ’ s detention on remand was extended by the Rzeszów R egional Court on 13 January, 11 April and 11 July 2011.

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

On 7 November 2011 a bill of indictment against the applicant and several other co ‑ accused was lodged with the Zamo ść Regional Court (case no . II K 71/11 ).

On 23 November 2011 the Zamo ść Regional Court extended the applicant ’ s detention further for three months , until 29 February 2012 .

Further extensions of the applicant ’ s pre ‑ trial dete ntion were ordered by the Lublin Court of Appeal on 27 September, 28 December 2012, 27 March and 26 June 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 that the applicant could be released upon payment of bail in the amount of 5 0,000 Poli sh zlotys (PLN), (approximately 1 2,000 euros (EUR) at the material time). The court found that this preventive measure would be capable of securing the proper conduct of the proceedings, it failed however to explain in details the reasons behind this decision. Since this decision was given in a result of the appeal, no further appeal is available against the Court of Appeal ’ s decision.

On 29 November 2013 the bail was paid and the applicant was released from detention.

On 14 January 2014 the Zamo ść Regional Court gave judgment and convicted the applicant. He was sentenced to 8 years ’ imprisonment and a fine .

The applicant appealed against at least six decisions extending his detention. All the decisions were upheld by the appellate courts.

In their decisions the courts relied on the original grounds for the applicant ’ s detention . The courts emphasized 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 capable of guaranteeing the proper conduct of the proceedings.

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 KudÅ‚a v. Poland [GC], no. 30210/96, §§ 75-79, ECHR 2000-XI; BagiÅ„ski v. Poland , no. 37444/97, §§ 42-46, 11 October 2005; 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 observations 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. Th is letter was returned to the Registry with a note that the apartment had been closed and the correspondence had not been collected in time .

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 George Nicolaou              Deputy Registrar President