SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 20550/12
Miroslav HRŠUM
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 13 October 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Robert Spano, President,
Ksenija Turković,
Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges,
and Abel Campos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 February 2012,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Miroslav Hršum, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina, who was born in 1962 and is currently detained in Gospić Prison.
The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
The applicant complained, under Articles 3, 6 §§ 1 and 2 and 8 of the Convention, about his alleged ill-treatment during the arrest, unlawful search of his home and lack of fairness of the criminal proceedings against him on charges of armed robbery.
The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations.
As no reply was received by the applicant, by a letter dated 19 February 2015, sent by registered post, the applicant and his representative Ž. Lubina, lawyer practising in Split, were notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 2 December 2014 and that no extension of time had been requested.
Their 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 25 February 2015 and his representative on 27 February 2015.
By a letter dated 3 March 2015 the applicant informed the Court that he intended to pursue the application but that he was no longer represented by Mr Lubina.
Accordingly, by a letter dated 10 March 2015, sent by registered post, the applicant was invited to designate a new representative and to submit his observations by 7 May 2015. He was also provided with a copy of the Government’s observations and copies of the correspondence sent to his former representative.
As no reply was received by the applicant, by a letter dated 22 May 2015, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired. He was also instructed that his failure to submit information referred to in the letter of 10 March 2015 could lead the Court to conclude that he was no longer interested in pursuing the application and that the Court could decide to strike the application out of its list of cases. The applicant was invited to submit his observations by 5 June 2015. The applicant received this letter on 8 June 2015.
No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
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 5 November 2015.
Abel Campos Robert Spano
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy