CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 2 février 2023

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s376CDD9C { width:117.08pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 38915/16 Ionel MACOVICIUC against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2   February 2023 as a Committee composed of:   Armen Harutyunyan , President ,   Anja Seibert-Fohr,   Ana Maria Guerra Martins , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2   August 2016, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Ionel Macoviciuc, was born in 1976. His complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”) (see the appended table for the relevant dates), the friendly settlement procedure being set in motion through the offices of the Registrar upon communication. As no reply was received by the Court from the applicant within the provided deadline, the Government submitted a unilateral declaration with a view to resolving the issues raised by these complaints. Still no reply was received by the Court from the applicant within the newly provided deadline. By letter sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the Court received no reply within the time allowed for the submission of his response and that he was provided with a new deadline for submitting a response (see the appended table for the relevant dates). The applicant’s attention was further drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The registered letter returned to the Court as unclaimed (see details in the appended table). No reply to the letter has been received by the Court and there are no previous letters from the applicant informing the Court about the change of address. The applicant had been released from prison several years before the date of this decision, and the most recent correspondence from him dates back several years as well (see the appended table for the relevant dates). THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, in the absence of any correspondence from the applicant for several years and considering that, following the communication of the application to the Government, no reply was received from the applicant, the Court concludes that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the application (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 the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the application. 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 2 March 2023.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Armen Harutyunyan   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article 3 of the Convention (inadequate conditions of detention) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth Date of the applicant’s last letter to the Court Date of sending the Government’s submissions to the applicant Date of the Court’s registered letter Date of receipt/return of the registered letter Time-limit for submitting response by the applicant   Date of the applicant’s release from prison 38915/16 02/08/2016 Ionel MACOVICIUC 1976     12/05/2017   24/11/2021   26/09/2022 Letter returned as unclaimed on 12/12/2022   04/01/2022   19/04/2017