FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45602/06
by Piotr KACZOROSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 October 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
and ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 November 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Piotr Kaczoroski, is a Polish national who was born in 1963 and was detained in Gdańsk Remand Centre.
 The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1.  First term of the applicant's pre-trial detention
From 5 September 2000 to, as it appears, 11 March 2002 the applicant was held in pre-trial detention on suspicion of having committed rape, battery and other related offences against his wife. All the charges pertained to events which allegedly occurred in 2000.
2.  Second term of the applicant's pre-trial detention
On 5 September 2004 the Gdańsk District Court (Sąd Rejonowy) remanded the applicant in custody on suspicion of having committed rape, battery and other related offences against his wife. The charges related to events in 2004. On 11 October 2004 the Gdańsk Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) upheld that decision.
The applicant's pre-trial detention was subsequently extended by decisions of the Gdańsk District Court of: 1 December 2004, 1 April, 16 May, 22 August and 16 November 2005, and 16 February and 18 May 2006.
The above-mentioned decisions were upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 20 December 2004, 25 April, 23 May, 12 September and 12 December 2005, and 13 March and 19 June 2006 respectively.
Meanwhile, on 6 October 2005 the Gdańsk District Court dismissed a request by the applicant for the preventive measure in question to be lifted.
The domestic courts justified the applicant's pre-trial detention by the existence of strong evidence against him, comprising witness testimony, the results of medical tests and the reports of experts in psychology and sexology, as well as the likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed. Moreover, the domestic courts invoked the need to ensure the proper conduct of the proceedings in the light of the risk that the applicant might induce witnesses to give false testimony. The courts were particularly concerned about the pressure the applicant might put on his wife, as well as about her well-being, since the applicant continued to live with her at the same address.
When the length of the applicant's pre‑trial detention reached the statutory two‑year time‑limit laid down in Article 263 § 3 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Kodeks postępowania karnego), the Gdańsk District Court was no longer competent to extend the preventive measure. Consequently, from that time on, the preventive measure was extended by decisions of the Gdańsk Court of Appeal (Sąd Apelacyjny) of 30 August and 21 November 2006. Those decisions were upheld by the same court on 19 September and 12 December 2006 respectively.
The Gdańsk Court of Appeal reiterated that strong evidence against the applicant had been obtained in the case and that there was likelihood that a severe penalty would be imposed. The applicant's protracted detention was also justified by the fact that a few more witnesses remained to be examined and that it was necessary to analyse the applicant's numerous requests for new evidence to be examined. Nevertheless, the Gdańsk Court of Appeal suggested that the trial court should schedule hearings more often and endeavour to complete the proceedings.
It appears that subsequently the applicant's pre-trial detention was extended by a decision of the Gdańsk District Court of 13 February 2007. That decision was upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 6 March 2007.
On 13 February 2007 the Gdańsk District Court convicted the applicant of several offences and sentenced him to six years' imprisonment.
On 18 April 2007 the Gdańsk District Court refused to lift the preventive measure as sought by the applicant. On 1 August 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court decided likewise.
Pending appeal the applicant's detention was extended by decisions of the Gdańsk District Court of 20 June 2007 (upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 17 July 2007) and of the Gdańsk Regional Court of 17 October 2007.
On 7 December 2007 the Gdańsk Regional Court decided to lift the applicant's pre-trial detention and to release him.
3.  Criminal proceedings against the applicant
It appears that on an unspecified date in 2002 the applicant was indicted on charges of rape, battery and other related offences against his wife. All the charges pertained to events which allegedly occurred in 2000.
On 13 September 2002 the Gdańsk District Court decided that several charges should be severed and dealt with in a separate trial and that these proceedings should be stayed because the alleged victim, who was the main witness in the case, had moved out of her habitual place of residence and her whereabouts were unknown. The court was obliged to stay the proceedings because, at the relevant time, the applicable law did not allow the trial court to rely solely on the testimony of a witness obtained in pre-trial proceedings.
It appears that on an unspecified date between September and November 2004 the applicant was indicted on charges of rape, battery and other related offences against his wife. Charges in this case pertained to offences which the applicant had allegedly committed in 2004.
On 29 November 2004 the Gdańsk District Court resumed the trial concerning the 2000 events, because the domestic criminal procedure had been amended so as to no longer require that a witness give his or her testimony before the trial court in person. That decision was upheld by the Gdańsk Regional Court on 10 January 2005.
In a separate decision of 29 November 2004 the Gdańsk District Court decided to join the newly resumed case with the 2004 case.
On 13 February 2007 the Gdańsk District Court acquitted the applicant of the charges pertaining to the year 2000 but convicted him of rape, battery and other related offences committed against his wife in 2004. The applicant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment. The term of prison was reduced by the period of the applicant's pre-trial detention from 3 September 2004 to 13 February 2007.
On an unspecified date the Gdańsk Regional Court quashed the first‑instance judgment and remitted the case. The proceedings are pending.
B.  Relevant domestic law and practice
The relevant domestic law and practice concerning the imposition of pre‑trial detention (aresztowanie tymczasowe), the grounds for its extension, release from detention and rules governing other “preventive measures” (środki zapobiegawcze) are set out in the Court's judgments in the cases of Goÿek v. Poland, no. 31330/02, §§ 27‑33, 25‑April 2006, and Celejewski v. Poland, no. 17584/04, §§ 22 23, 4 August 2006.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention of the excessive length of his pre-trial detention.
He also complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings against him.
Finally, the applicant complained under Article 6 §§ 3 (b) and (d) that he had had inadequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence and of shortcomings in the criminal proceedings against him.
THE LAW
By letter dated 15 April 2008 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 28 May 2008.
By letters dated 23 June and 19 August 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's observations had expired on 28 May 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's 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 letter of 19 August 2008 was returned to the sender with a note that it had not been claimed. The applicant has not to date resumed correspondence with the Court in the instant case.
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 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.
	Lawrence Early	Nicolas Bratza
	Registrar	President