FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 16066/14
Daniel CRĂCIUNESCU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 December 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Acting Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 March 2014,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Daniel Crăciunescu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Lipova, Arad County.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs C. Brumar, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the inadequate conditions of detention in Timișoara Penitentiary.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded for information to the applicant, who was invited to submit his claims under Article 41. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letters dated 16 July 2015, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his claims had expired on 7 May 2015 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 applicant received this letter on 27 July 2015. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 14 January 2016.
Hasan BakırcıVincent A. De Gaetano
Acting Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy