[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Kazimierz CHRUSCIEL v Poland - 27926/04 [2012] ECHR 366 (14 February 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/366.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 366

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no 27926/04
Kazimierz CHRUŚCIEL
against Poland

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 14 February 2012 as a Chamber composed of:

David Thór Björgvinsson, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Päivi Hirvelä,
George Nicolaou,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 July 2004,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Kazimierz Chruściel, is a Polish national who was born in 1956 and lives in Tuszów Narodowy. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry of Polish Affairs.

The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the revocation of his right to the so-called EWK pension.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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 to the Registry’s letter.

By letter dated 8 November 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 28 March 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 letter in question was collected by the applicant’s wife on 21 November 2011. No response has been received.

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.

Fatoş Aracı David Thór Björgvinsson
Deputy Registrar President