CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 février 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 } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s46C79669 { width:202.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 9951/10 Mirosław PIECHOWICZ against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17   February 2015 as a Committee composed of:   George Nicolaou, President,   Ledi Bianku,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 January 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Mirosław Piechowicz, is a Polish national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Lublin. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Więcław, a lawyer practising in Lublin. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the seizure of his car in connection with criminal proceedings against him. The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s lawyer, who was invited to submit his observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 25 September 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 1 September 2014 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’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. This letter was returned to the Registry on 7   November 2014. On 21 November 2014 a further registered letter requesting the applicant’s observations and just-satisfaction claims was sent to the applicant’s address. The applicant had until 19 December 2014 to submit the requested information. However, no response has been received. 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 12 March 2015.   Fatoş Aracı   George Nicolaou Deputy Registrar   President