THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 19580/10
Emese SZŐCS
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 12 March 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan, President,
Kristina Pardalos,
Johannes Silvis, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 April 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Emese Szőcs, is a Romanian and Hungarian national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Miercurea-Ciuc.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Co-Agent, Ms Irina Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Relying in substance on Article 3 of the Convention, the applicant claimed that the material conditions of her pre-trial detention in Miercurea‑Ciuc Prison and at the Miercurea-Ciuc Police Department amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment. Also, the authorities failed to provide her with adequate medical care and she did not have access to a dentist. Invoking in substance Article 5 § 3 of the Convention, the applicant complained about the repeated use of the same general evidence by the domestic courts as a basis for placing and keeping her in pre-trial detention for an excessively long time. Relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the applicant complained that during a search of her home some of her personal belongings were damaged or lost.
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 3 and 5 of the Convention concerning the material conditions of her pre-trial detention in Miercurea‑Ciuc Prison and Miercurea-Ciuc Police Department and the repeated use of the same general evidence by the domestic courts as a basis for placing and keeping her in pre-trial detention for an excessively long time 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 her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 14 November 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 24 July 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 27 November 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 her 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.
Marialena TsirliAlvina Gyulumyan
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy