FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 49292/10
Milan POTISK
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12 June 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Anatoly Kovler, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Erik Møse, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 August 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Milan Potisk, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Lepoglava.
The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in the Zagreb Prison Hospital (Bolnica za osobe lišene slobode) and Lepoglava State Prison (Kaznionica u Lepoglavi).
The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention 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. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 21 March 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 1 March 2012 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. This letter could not be served on the applicant since he had moved from his previous address without notifying the Registry of any new address where he could be reached.
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.
André WampachAnatoly Kovler
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy