CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 22 octobre 2015

.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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .sD8D10B43 { width:206.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 6497/11 Eugeniusz SYPNIEWSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 22   October 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Nona Tsotsoria, President,   Ledi Bianku,   Paul Mahoney, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 January 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Eugeniusz Sypniewski, is a Polish national who lives in Bydgoszcz. He was represented before the Court by Mrs   E.   Głuszek ‑ Manikowska, a lawyer practising in Bydgoszcz. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that he did not have a possibility to challenge his paternity. He further alleged in substance a breach of Article 8 of the Convention. On 15 September 2014 the applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government. The Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the case were received on 9 February 2015. By letter dated 16 February 2015 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 30   March 2015. By letters dated 23 April 2015, sent by registered post to the applicant’s home address and to his representative, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 30 March 2015 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 lawyer received this letter on 13   May 2015 and failed to submit any reply. The letter sent to the applicant was returned on 20 May 2015 as unclaimed. 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 12 November 2015.     Fatoş Aracı   Nona Tsotsoria Deputy Registrar   President