CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 novembre 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s46C79669 { width:202.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 32920/12 Janusz DRWIĘGA against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4   November 2014 as a Committee composed of:   George Nicolaou, President,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Faris Vehabović, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 May 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Janusz Drwięga, is a Polish national, who was born in 1968 and lives in Sanok. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   Justyna Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant complained in essence under Article 3 of the Convention about conditions of his detention in Lublin Remand Centre. On 3 September 2013 the applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their friendly settlement proposal. By letter dated 7 November 2013 the Government’s friendly settlement proposal was forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his comments by 21 November 2013. No response has been received. By letter dated 25 November 2013 the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his comments had been extended. By letter dated 28 January 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was again reminded that he had not responded to the Government’s proposal. The letter was returned by the administration of Łupków Prison. The Court was informed that the applicant had been released on 10   December 2012. By letter dated 26 March 2014, sent by registered post to the applicant’s home address, he was notified that the period allowed for submission of his comments had been further extended until 16 April 2014. 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 8   April 2014. The letter remained without answer. Another letter was sent by registered post on 28 May 2014. The applicant’s attention was again 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. On 10 July 2014 the letter came back as unclaimed. The applicant has not to date resumed correspondence with the Court in the instant case. 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 Aracı   George Nicolaou Deputy Registrar   President