by Łukasz MACHELSKI
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 17 February 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 August 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr Łukasz Machelski, is a Polish national who was born in 1984 and at the relevant time was detained in Herby Prison. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
Between 25 February 2006 and an unspecified date in October 2006 the applicant was detained in the Częstochowa Remand Centre. He was held in cell no. 4 ward no. I. The cell in question measured 25 square metres and was shared by 12 detainees. It was equipped with 12 beds, 2 large tables, 2 small tables and 12 stools. There was a toilet annex inside the cell. There was also one window but no ventilation system. Hot water was available only during meals. Every day the detainees were allowed to take a one hour walk in the outdoor yard which measured 10 x 4 square metres. The yard was used by 30 inmates at a time. The applicant had a bath once a week and his sheets were changed once every fortnight. All the meals were served cold. The detainees were allowed to receive visitors twice a month for one hour sessions.
The applicant has not complained to the domestic authorities about the conditions in Częstochowa Remand Centre, nor has he filed any related civil action for compensation on account of health or moral damage suffered.
It appears that on an unspecified date in October 2006 the applicant was transferred to the Herby Prison, where he remained until an unspecified date.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of the conditions of his detention in the Częstochowa Remand Centre.
By letter dated 6 June 2007 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 20 July 2007.
By letters dated 29 October 2007, sent by registered post to Herby Prison, Częstochowa Remand Centre and the applicant’s home address in Przystajń, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 20 July 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. None of the letters was returned to the sender. The letter sent to Częstochowa Remand Centre was claimed by the applicant on 8 November 2007 and the letter sent to his home address was claimed by the applicant’s father on 5 November 2007.
In addition, by letter dated 18 November 2008, sent by registered post to all the above indicated addresses, the applicant was once more notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 20 July 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. Moreover, the applicant’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. By letter of 24 November 2008 the authorities informed the Registry of the Court that on 27 September 2006 the applicant had been transferred from Herby Prison to Częstochowa Remand Centre. The letter sent to Częstochowa Remand Centre was claimed by the applicant on 2 December 2008 and the letter sent to his home address was claimed by the applicant’s father on 24 November 2008. The applicant has not to date 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.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza