FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35400/04
by Arkadiusz KORENTZ
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 January 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi,
Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 August 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Arkadiusz Korentz, a Polish national who was born in 1979 and lives in Warszawa. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained mainly under Article 3 of the Convention about overcrowding and inadequate living conditions in Warszawa‑Mokotów Prison.
The above complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. On 25 September 2007 the observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations before 6 November 2007. On 11 October 2007 the applicant sent a letter asking the Registry to assign a lawyer to represent him before the Court because he had not been able to find one in Poland. On 23 October 2007 the applicant was instructed that the duty to appoint a representative rested with the party to the proceedings. He was also reminded about the deadline for his observations and just satisfaction claims. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letters dated 30 November 2007 and 21 February 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 6 November 2007 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 letters were collected by the applicant’s mother on 5 December 2007 and 26 February 2008 respectively. 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.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy