BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Jan MIKOLOWSKI v Poland - 12544/07 [2011] ECHR 1201 (5 July 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1201.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1201 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
12544/07
by Jan MIKOŁOWSKI
against
Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 July 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
Lawrence Early,
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 February 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Jan Mikołowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1962 and lives in Jarzyły. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained among others under Article 3 of the Convention about the overcrowding and inadequate conditions and medical care during his detention.
This complaint was communicated to the Government. A friendly settlement procedure was put in place following the pilot judgment in the case of Orchowski v. Poland, no. 17885/04, ECHR 2009 ... (extracts) and the leading decision in the case of Łatak v. Poland (no. 52070/08) on 12 October 2010. On 18 February 2011 the Government submitted their unilateral declatration and asked that the case be stuck out of the list of the Court’s applications.
By letter dated 10 March 2011, sent by registered post to his home address, the applicant was notified about the Government’s unilateral declaration and invited to submit comments in reply. The period allowed for submission of the applicant’s comments on the unilateral declaration expired on 7 April 2011. No reply has been received. The Registry’s letter to the applicant was returned with the information that the addressee had moved out.
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.
Lawrence Early Nicolas
Bratza
Registrar President