CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 21 juin 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 } .s13F94BDE { font-family:Arial; letter-spacing:-0.1pt } .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 } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .s51F2D829 { width:208.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 8915/09 by Jozef JĘDRUCH against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21   June 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Sverre Erik Jebens,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 November 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Jozef Jędruch, is a Polish national who was born in 1972 and lives in Częstochowa. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the practice of subjecting him to abusive and automatic strip searches by prison guards when he had been in detention.   The application was communicated to the Government, who did not submit any observations on the admissibility and merits. The applicant was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 18 October 2010, sent by registered post to his address in Katowice, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 23 July 2010 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. No response has been received. The letter was returned to the Registry with the information that nobody had claimed it at the post office. A similar letter was sent to the applicant’s address in Świerklaniec on 14   January 2011. No response has been received; however, by letter of 1   February 2011 the applicant asked about the progress of his case and informed the Registry about his new address in Częstochowa. By letter dated 24 February 2011, sent to the applicant’s new address as above, the applicant was informed at length about the state of his proceedings before the Court. Copies of the Registry’s previous letters, drawing the applicant’s attention to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, were enclosed to that correspondence. No response has been received. Lastly, by letters dated 5 April 2011, sent by registered post to all of the applicant’s known addresses (in Katowice, Świerklaniec and Częstochowa), the applicant was instructed to inform the Registry whether he wished to pursue his application with the Court. 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. No response has been received. The letters were returned to the Registry with the information that nobody had claimed them at the post office. 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