THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 48198/09
Mihai VASILE
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 August 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Mihai Vasile, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Jilava.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs I. Cambrea.
The applicant raised complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 6 of the Convention in relation with criminal proceedings against him and with his detention in Jilava and Ploieşti Prisons. The complaint under Article 3 concerning the material conditions of his detention and the complaint under Article 6 § 1 concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against him 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. The envelope containing the Government’s observations was sent back with the mention that the applicant’s address was incomplete. On 8 June 2012 another letter was sent to Jilava Prison where the applicant was detained according to the latest information submitted by him. It remained without any reply as the addressee was unknown.
The applicant sent his last letter to the Court on 24 August 2009. Although he was informed that he had the obligation to inform the Court of any change in his address, he did not provide the Court with his new 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.
Santiago QuesadaAlvina Gyulumyan
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy