FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 59915/10
Piotr PARCZEWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8 October 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 24 September 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Piotr Parczewski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1957 and lives in Warszawa.
The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant mainly complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of his criminal proceedings.
The applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government, who by letter of 8 January 2013 submitted their proposal for a friendly settlement. A copy of that letter was forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his comments. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letters dated 18 June 2013 and 5 August 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that no reply had been receiverd to the letter of 8 January 2013. 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. 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