FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 46812/06
by Andrzej LEPPER
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 May 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Ljiljana Mijović,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 31 October 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Andrzej Lepper, a Polish national who was born in 1954 and lives in Darłowo. He was represented before the Court by Ms R. Żarska, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged interference with his right to freedom of expression was 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.
By letter dated 21 June 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant’s lawyer was notified that the period allowed for submission of her client’s observations had expired on 21 April 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The attention of the applicant’s lawyer 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 advice of receipt was returned to the Court indicating that the applicant’s lawyer moved office. A similar letter was sent to the applicant’s home address by registered post on 13 January 2011. The advice of receipt was returned to the Court indicating that the letter was delivered on 21 January 2011. 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