CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 juillet 2024

.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 } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .sC60B69EF { width:127.74pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .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. 55168/16 Gelu-Dumitru VÎRTOPEANU against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11   July 2024 as a Committee composed of:   Branko Lubarda , President ,   Anne Louise Bormann,   Sebastian Răduleţu , judges , and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17   October 2016, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Gelu-Dumitru Vîrtopeanu, was born in 1973. The applicant’s complaints under Article 3 of the Convention concerning the inadequate conditions of detention were communicated to the Romanian 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 response within the time allowed for the submission of his 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 letters returned to the Court as unknown (see details in the appended table). There are no previous letters from the applicant informing the Court about a change of address. The applicant had been released from prison several years before the date of this decision (see the appended table for the relevant date). 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 5 September 2024.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Branko Lubarda   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 Time-limit for submitting response by the applicant Date of the Court’s registered letter Date of return of the registered letter) Date of the applicant’s release from prison 55168/16 17/10/2016 Gelu-Dumitru VÎRTOPEANU 1973 01/02/2017   24/11/2021 04/01/2022 03/08/2023       14/11/2023 09/10//2023 Returned to sender as “unknown”   26/02/2024 Returned as “unclaimed” from the last address indicated by the applicant” 05/08/2021