FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 8292/02
by Andrzej BURMAN
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 December 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 November 2001,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Andrzej Burman, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Serock. The Polish Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On 27 October 2006 the President of the Fourth Section decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint under Articles 3 and 8 about the conditions of his detention.
By letter dated 31 October 2006 the Registry informed the applicant that the President of the Fourth Section decided to communicate his complaint. By the same letter the applicant was requested to inform the Registry who would represent him in the proceedings before the Court. The letter, sent to the Gliwice Detention Centre was transmitted by the penitentiary authorities to the Wrocław Prison, then to the Łowicz Prison, and finally to the Katowice Detention Centre. It results from the acknowledgement of receipt issued by the penitentiary authorities that the applicant was released from the Katowice Detention Centre and that the home address he provided upon release was invalid. On 14 February 2007 the letter was returned to the Registry unclaimed.
On 5 February 2007 the applicant was again requested to submit the relevant information. He was also warned that in case he failed to respond, the Court could decide that he was no longer interested in pursuing his application. The letter, sent by registered mail with an acknowledgment of receipt, was returned unclaimed.
The applicant has not to date resumed correspondence with the Court in the instant case.
On this basis, the Court concludes that he is no longer interested in pursuing his application.
THE LAW
Consequently, the Court finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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 AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy