FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 55837/11
Mariusz MOCZEK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 June 2013 as a Committee composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Vincent A. De Gaetano,
Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 August 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Mariusz Moczek, is a Polish national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Dąbrowa Górnicza.
The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention.
The applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government. By letter dated 11 December 2012 the Government informed the Court that they accept the friendly settlement proposal.
On 13 December 2012 the applicant was requested to inform the Court by 16 January 2013 whether he accepted the settlement in question. The applicant failed to respond.
By letters dated 14 February 2013 and 22 March 2013, sent by registered post to the applicant’s home address, he was requested to submit the relevant information. The applicant was also warned that in case he failed to respond, the Court could decide that he was no longer interested in pursuing his application. Both letters came back as unclaimed. The applicant failed to inform the Registry about another address where he might be staying and has not to date resumed correspondence with the Court in the instant case.
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 AracıDavid Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy