CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 3 juillet 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s260B30F2 { width:16.02pt; display:inline-block } .sAF759458 { width:174.62pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 15294/03 Mihai SASU against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 July 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Alvina Gyulumyan, President,   Ineta Ziemele,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 March 2001, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Mihai Sasu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Soci, Iaşi County. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Irina Cambrea, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant’s complaints concerning the conditions of detention in Mărgineni Prison 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 comments. As the applicant informed the Court that he could not understand either one of the official languages and could not afford to pay for translations, the Court asked the Government to provide a Romanian translation of the observations which was subsequently forwarded to the applicant. The latter was also authorised to use Romanian in his communications with the Court and invited to apply for legal aid. However, no reply was received to the Registry’s letters. By letter dated 7 September 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified both in French and Romanian that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 8 July 2011 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’s father received this letter on 16   September 2011. However, no response has been received by the Court. A similar letter was sent by registered post on 20 April 2012 and received by the applicant on 2 May 2012. It also remained unanswered. 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.   Marialena Tsirli   Alvina Gyulumyan   Deputy Registrar   President