CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 novembre 2014

.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 } .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 } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sD9CB18AA { width:177.6pt; display:inline-block } .s2055D3B3 { width:16.54pt; display:inline-block } .s7C039683 { width:226.45pt; display:inline-block }   FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 25530/12 Mirzet MUKELJIĆ against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13   November 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Angelika Nußberger, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 April 2012, Having regard to the formal declarations accepting a friendly settlement of the case, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Mirzet Mukeljić, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1984 and lives in Ljubljana He was represented before the Court by Mr J. Ahlin, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Vran. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the material conditions of detention in the remand section of Ljubljana Prison, and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. Under Article 14 of the Convention he complained of discrimination between prisoners with different financial situations; as the prices in a prison shop were higher than in the general marketplace, some prisoners could buy fewer goods than others. After the Government had been given notice of the application, the applicant informed the Court that he wished to withdraw his application introduced before the Court, as a settlement had been reached with the State Attorney’s Office. THE LAW In the absence of any indication to the contrary, the Court is satisfied that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application and finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the list in accordance with Article 37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Stephen Phillips   Angelika Nußberger   Registrar   President