THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 73420/12
Mihaly DEME
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 December 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Dragoljub Popović,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 September 2012,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Mihaly Deme, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1981 and is detained in Sfântu Gheorghe.
2. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
3. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the alleged infringement of his right to medical assistance during his detention in Codlea Prison.
4. The applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.
5. On 24 February 2014 the applicant was invited to appoint a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings before the Court. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
6. By letter dated 12 September 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for appointing a lawyer had expired on 24 March 2014 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 1 October 2014. 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.
Marialena TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy