CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 février 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s58B8AE49 { clear:both; mso-column-break-before:always } .s24AFA639 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE575CD4A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:29.2pt; text-align:justify } .sACBC61AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s9D5ED0F7 { width:218.78pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 8369/02 by Edward WICZKOWSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 6 February 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   J. Šikuta ,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mr T.L. Early, Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 November 2001, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Edward Wiczkowski, is a Polish national who was born in Stanisławów and lives in Wrocław. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant was a defendant in proceedings, terminated by a judgment in default, issued by the Wrocław-Śródmieście District Court on 27 July 2000. The judgment became final and enforcement proceedings were instituted against the applicant. On 15 November 2000 the applicant lodged an objection against this judgment with that court and a request to have a time-limit for lodging the objection restored, arguing that the judgment had not been properly served on him. As a result, he had learnt about it only when the enforcement proceedings were instituted. By a decision of 15 January 2001 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s request to have the time-limit for the lodging of the objections restored. No written grounds were prepared for this decision. At the same time the court rejected the objection as having been lodged out of time. The applicant requested to be served with the written grounds of the refusal in its part concerning the refusal to restore the time-limit. By a decision of 24 January 2001 the District Court rejected his request, observing that written grounds were not prepared for decisions against which no appeal lay. The applicant appealed. By a decision of 31   May 2001 the Wrocław Regional Court found the decision of 24 January 2001 to be in compliance with the law. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 that he had been deprived of access to a court and that the proceedings had been unfair in that his objection to a judgment in default could not be examined by a second ‑ instance court. He complained that the court had given no grounds for its refusal of leave to submit an objection against the judgment in default out of time. THE LAW The Court observes that by a letter of 28 July 2006 the applicant was invited to reply, by 8 September 2006, to the Government’s written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. However, the applicant failed to do so. By a registered letter of 25 October 2006 the applicant was requested to inform the Court whether he wished to pursue the case. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides: “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.” On 13 November 2006 a postal delivery report was received at the Court indicating that the applicant had been duly served with this letter. However, there was no reply to it. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. The Court also considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case. The application should therefore be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued. For these reasons, the Court unanimously   Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President