CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 janvier 2015

.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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s6820D92C { width:215.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 52046/11 Tomasz KRZEMIŃSKI against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 27   January 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Ledi Bianku, President,   Paul Mahoney,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 August 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr   Tomasz Krzemiński, is a Polish national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Kraków. He was represented before the Court by Mr   J.   Znamiec, a lawyer practising in Kraków. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   J.   Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant complained under Article   5 §   3 of the Convention that the length of his pre ‑ trial detention was excessive. On 14   February 2014 the applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their friendly settlement proposal. By letter dated 17   April 2014 the Government’s friendly ‑ settlement proposal was forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit comments on behalf of the applicant by 15   May 2014. No response was received. By letter dated 5   June 2014 the applicant’s representative was requested to submit the comments by 26   June 2014. By letter of 23   June 2014 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that he had no contact with the applicant and he could not make a   decision on his behalf. By letter dated 22   August 2014, sent by registered post to the applicant’s home address, he was requested to reply by 12   September 2014. The applicant’s attention was also 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 letter was eventually returned on 18   November 2014 due to change of the applicant’s address. Meanwhile, on 17   October 2014, another letter was sent by registered post to the applicant’s home address and to the permanent address indicated in the application form. The applicant’s attention was again 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. He was requested to submit his reply by 7   November 2014. No response has been received. On 19   November 2014 the letter sent to his home address was returned. No further communication has been received from the applicant or his representative. THE LAW The Court notes that the applicant lost contact with his representative and he had not provided him with any instructions for responding to the Government’s friendly ‑ settlement proposal. The applicant himself has also not resumed correspondence with the Court in the instant case. 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. Done in English and notified in writing on 19 February 2015.   Fatoş Aracı   Ledi Bianku Deputy Registrar   President