FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36344/12
Jovica GVOZDEN
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 December 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Helena Jäderblom, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 June 2012,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Jovica Gvozden, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Dob.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Tjaša Mihelič Žitko.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the material conditions of detention in the remand section of Ljubljana Prison and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
The case was communicated to the respondent Government.
By letter dated 26 August 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of claims for just satisfaction had expired on 27 June 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The date for submission of claims for just satisfaction was extended to 4 October 2013. 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. This letter, as well as previous letters, was sent to the address the applicant stated as his present address. One letter enclosing documents, with which he was again requested to inform the Court of any change of his address, was also sent to his permanent address. No response has been received by the applicant to any of the Court’s letters nor did he inform the Court of any change of his address.
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.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy