CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 26 janvier 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .sF0F864BE { width:185.62pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 21457/11 David William HALL against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26   January 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Kristina Pardalos, President,   Paul Mahoney,   Pauliine Koskelo, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 March 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr David William Hall, is a British national, who was born in 1945 and lives in Wolverhampton. 2.     The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. McLeod, of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the retention of his biometric data and photograph following a criminal caution administered on 5 January 2011. He also complained about the potential impact of that retention on his future employment prospects and about the conditions and treatment received during his arrest and detention. 4.     On 16 December 2014 the applicant’s complaint under Article 8 regarding the retention of his biometric data and photograph was communicated to the Government and the remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application on 28 July 2015. Those observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. 5.     By letter dated 6 November 2015, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 17 September 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 received this letter on 18 November 2015. However, no response has been received. THE LAW 6.     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. 7.     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 18 February 2016. André Wampach   Kristina Pardalos Deputy Registrar   President