CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 janvier 2011

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s51F2D829 { width:208.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 20187/03 by Daniel SAMEK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on   11   January 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ledi Bianku,   Mihai Poalelungi,   Vincent A. de Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 May 2003, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The application was lodged by Mr Daniel Samek, a Polish national who was born in 1961 and lives in Bardo Śląskie. The Polish Government (“the   Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr   J.   Wołąsiewicz of   the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant’s complaint under Articles 3 and 8 about the conditions of   his detention was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his comments. No   reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 15 October 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the his observations had expired on 27 June 2008 and that no extension of the time-limit 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 20 October 2008 but failed to reply. By letter of 26 March 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was requested to inform the Registry whether he was interested in pursuing his application. He received the letter on 30 March 2009 but also failed to reply. 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   Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar   President