NYSZTAL v. POLAND
FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33286/15
Tomasz NYSZTAL
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 26 March 2019 as a Committee composed of:
Aleš Pejchal, President,
Tim Eicke,
Jovan Ilievski, judges,
and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 July 2015,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
1. The applicant, Mr Tomasz Nysztal, is a Polish national, who was born in 1976 and was detained in Świdnica prison.
2. The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention of overcrowding and inadequate living conditions during his detention in the Buniewice ward of Kamień Pomorski Remand Centre between 22 May and 22 October 2009, on 3 November and from 1 to 2 December 2009.
3. On 28 September 2018 the applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Polish Government (“the Government”), who were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Chrzanowska and subsequently by Mr J. Sobczak, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. A friendly settlement procedure was put in place following the pilot judgment in the case of Orchowski v. Poland, (no. 17885/04), and the leading decision in the case of Łatak v. Poland (no. 52070/08).
4. On the same date, the applicant was requested to inform the Registry by 23 November 2018 whether he accepted the settlement but he failed to respond to this letter.
5. On 16 November 2018 the Government submitted their declaration with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.
6. On 27 November 2018, information on the Government’s declaration was forwarded to the applicant who was requested again to inform the Registry by 11 December 2018 whether he accepted the settlement but he failed to respond to this letter.
7. By a letter dated 23 January 2019, sent by registered post to the prison address in Świdnica, the applicant was requested to inform the Registry by 20 February 2019 whether he accepted the settlement. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The letter was returned to the Court with a note that the applicant had no longer been imprisoned in that facility. His current address is unknown.
THE LAW
8. 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 18 April 2019.
Renata DegenerAleš Pejchal
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy