FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 43635/13
Romualdas ŠAULYS
against Lithuania
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,
Egidijus Kūris,
Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges,
and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 June 2013,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Romualdas Šaulys, is a Lithuanian national, who was born in 1974 and was detained in Vilnius.
2. The Lithuanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms E. Baltutytė.
3. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about his conditions of detention in Lukiškės Remand Prison from 20 October 2010 until 31 May 2011. He also complained that his health deteriorated due to these conditions. For 203 days in overcrowded cells the applicant received 3,500 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 1,014 euros (EUR)) in compensation by the domestic courts.
4. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. These observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his observations in reply, together with his claims for just satisfaction. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
5. By letter dated 11 September 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 19 August 2014 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. The applicant received this letter on 20 September 2014. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
6. 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 6 October 2016.
Andrea TamiettiVincent A. De Gaetano
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy