European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 23210/04
by Thaddaus MANKA
against Germany

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on
4 November 2008 as a Chamber composed of:

Rait Maruste, President,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 June 2004,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Thaddaus Manka, is a German national who was born in 1956 and was living in Dirmstein when he lodged his application.
The German Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Deputy Agent, Mr H.-J. Behrens, Ministerialrat, of the Federal Ministry of Justice.

The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

On 19 September 2003 the Frankenthal Public Prosecutor’s Office discontinued criminal investigations into an allegation that the applicant had participated in a burglary in G. as there was insufficient evidence against the applicant.

On 6 October 2003 the Frankenthal police ordered that personal identification data on the applicant be collected for police records on the grounds that, despite the Public Prosecutor’s decision to discontinue the proceedings, there was some evidence that the applicant had aided and abetted the burglary in G. The applicant’s appeals were to no avail.

On 9 June 2004 the Federal Constitutional Court declined to consider the applicant’s constitutional complaint (file no. 1 BvR 1145/04).

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 2 of the Convention that the decision to collect personal identification data concerning him for the police records violated the presumption of innocence because he was being treated as a criminal even though the investigation into the alleged offence had been discontinued.

Relying on Article 8 of the Convention, the applicant further argued that there had been no justification for the interference with his private life through the collection of his personal identification data.

Without invoking any specific Article of the Convention, the applicant further claimed that the order to collect the data violated his human dignity.

THE LAW

On 17 January 2008 the President of the Chamber decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government. By a letter dated 18 January 2008 the applicant was invited to return to the Court by
15 February 2008 a duly completed form of authority in favour of the advocate who would represent him before the Court. The applicant failed to reply.

By a letter dated 15 May 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 26 June 2008 and was reminded of his duty to appoint a representative before the Court.
The applicant did not reply to this letter either.

By a registered letter dated 4 September 2008 the applicant was notified that the period allowed for the submission of his observations had expired on 26 June 2008 without any extension of time being requested.
His 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, unlike the Court’s previous letters which had also been sent to the sole address that had been given by the applicant, was returned to the Court on 16 September 2008 with a note from the post office stating that the applicant was not known at the address indicated.

No correspondence from the applicant, who did not inform the Court of any change in his address, has been received at the Court since. Despite various enquiries, in particular of counsel who represented the applicant in the proceedings before the administrative courts, the Court has no information about his current address.

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.

Stephen Phillips Rait Maruste
Deputy Registrar President