FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28995/11
Ismail Said STĘPNIEWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22 January 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 26 April 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Ismail Said Stępniewski, is a Polish national, who was born in 1974 and lives in Warszawa.
The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz, succeeded by Ms. J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant, a Muslim prisoner, complained under Articles 3 and 9 of the Convention about his detention in overcrowded cells and a lack of non-pork diet in prison.
The application was 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 8 August 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 1 June 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. The applicant received this letter on 13 August 2012. However, no response has been received.
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