European Court of Human Rights

FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 55842/10
Darko MIŠKIĆ
against Croatia

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 10 January 2012 as a Chamber composed of:

Anatoly Kovler, President,
Nina Vajić,
Elisabeth Steiner,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Julia Laffranque,
Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,
Erik Møse, judges,
and Søren Nielsen, Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 September 2010,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Darko Miškić, is a Croatian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Zagreb. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. StaZnik.

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention. He was released on 14 November 2010.

The applicant’s complaint was 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.

By a letter dated 23 September 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 27 July 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. 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. The applicant however failed to collect that letter as well as previous letters sent to him by the Court on the address he had provided.

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.

Søren Nielsen Anatoly Kovler
Registrar President