FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 73369/10 Paweł SŁOJEWSKI against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 28 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Päivi Hirvelä , President, Vincent A. D e Gaetano , Robert Spano , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 December 2010 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Paweł Słojewski , is a Polish national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Warsaw .

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

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

1. First set of criminal proceedings against the applicant (IV K 1287/06)

In 2004 the applicant was arrested and charged with assault and robbery. He was subsequently released and placed under police supervision.

On 10 May 2010 the Warsaw-Praga District Court convicted the applicant as charged and sentenced him to three years ’ imprisonment and a fine.

On 28 September 2010 the Warsaw-Praga Region al Court upheld the first-instance judgment.

The applicant ’ s cassation appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 20 May 2011.

2. Second set of criminal proceedings against the applicant

On 19 September 2006 the applicant was charged with assault and robbery.

In September 2006 he went to work in the United Kingdom. On 17 June 2009, on his return, he was arrested and placed in pre-trial detention.

The applicant ’ s pre-trial detention was extended, in particular, on 30 June 2009, 7 September 2009, 13 November 2009, 15 March 2010 and 15 June 2010. The courts considered that keeping the applicant in detention was necessary to secure the proper conduct of the proceedings.

The applicant ’ s appeal against the detention order, likewise his further appeals against decisions prolonging his detention and all his subsequent, numerous applications for release and appeals against refusals to release him, were unsuccessful.

On 26 September 2009 the charges against the applicant were modified.

On 16 August 2010 a bill of indictment against the applicant was filed with the Warsaw District Court.

On 13 September 2010 and 14 December 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court again extended the applicant ’ s pre-trial detention. These decisions were upheld on 4 November 2010 and 11 February 2011 respectively.

On 11 March 2011 the Warsaw District Court lifted the pre-trial detention order, since the applicant had begun serving a prison sentence imposed in a different set of criminal proceedings against him.

It appears that the proceedings are pending before the court of first ‑ instance.

3. Family visits in pre-trial detention

On an unknown date in 2009 the applicant applied to be allowed a visit from his fiancée, K.W. The Warsaw District Prosecutor (Prokurator Rejonowy ) refused his request. On 26 August 2009 the applicant filed an appeal against this decision. On 10 September 2009 it was dismissed as inadmissible in law.

On 16 August 2010 the prosecutor again refused the applicant to have a prison visit from K.W. The prosecutor referred to the fact that K.W. was a witness in the proceedings against the applicant.

The applicant appealed submitting that K.W. was the only person close to him ( osoba bliska ), given that his par ents were dead. In addition, he submitted that she had testified as regards the items that were confiscated in his and his fiancée ’ s house and her testi monies had no relevance for the case against him.

On 26 September 2010 the applicant again asked to be allowed a visit from K.W.

On 25 October 2010 he complained that he had not yet received a reply to his request.

On 4 November 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court informed him that his request would be examined when the Wars aw Court of Appeal returned the case files to the Regional Court.

On 15 November 2010 the Warsaw Regional Court refused the applicant a visit from K.W. The court held that she was a witness in the proceedings.

On 17 December 2010 the applicant again asked to be allowed a visit from K.W. On 11 February 2011 he complained that he had not yet received a reply to his request.

COMPLAINT S

1. The applicant complain ed under Article 6 of the Convention about the unfairness of the first set of criminal proceedings against him.

2. He further complain ed under Article 8 of the Convention that for more than 19 months (between June 2009 and March 2011) he had not been allowed to receive prison visits from his fiancée.

3. Lastly, he submit ted numerous complaints about various irregularities in prison.

THE LAW

By letter dated 17 May 2013 the Government expressed their wish to conclude the case by a friendly settlement.

By letter dated 29 May 2013 the Government ’ s letter was sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations in reply by 24 July 2013.

By letter dated 1 August 2013 the applicant was notified that the Government had accepted the friendly-settlement proposal and was invited to express his position on the issue by 16 September 2013.

By letter dated 10 October 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was again requested to state his position with regard to the friendly ‑ settlement proposal by 31 October 2013. The applicant ’ s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Conv ention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applican t does not intend to pursue the application. This letter was not collected by the applicant. A similar letter dated 15 November 2013 has remained unanswered.

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.

Fatoş Aracı Päivi Hirvelä Deputy Registrar President