CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 août 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5830ECD9 { width:0.2pt; display:inline-block } .sCA6C4ED6 { width:194.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 35778/07 Grzegorz ŻEMEK against Poland The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30   August 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Nona Tsotsoria, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 August 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Grzegorz Żemek, is a Polish national, who was born in 1946 and lives in Warsaw. He was represented before the Court by Mr   G. Majewski, a lawyer practising in Warsaw. 2.     The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicant complained, inter alia , under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that Judge A.K. had been assigned to examine his case at the trial court in breach of the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and that the judge had not been impartial. The applicant also complained about the breach of his right to a fair trial in connection with the passing of the legislation extending limitation periods in the course of his criminal case. 4.     The above-mentioned complaints were 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 own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. 5.     By letter dated 9 February 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 23 June 2015 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. The law firm of the applicant’s representative received this letter on 15 February 2016. However, no response has been received. 6.     By letter dated 15 April 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was again informed about the expiry of a time-limit for submission of his observations. The law firm of the applicant’s representative received this letter on 26 April 2016. However, no response has been received. THE LAW 7.     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. 8.     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 22 September 2016.   Andrea Tamietti   Nona Tsotsoria Deputy Registrar   President