Brajdič v. Slovenia

FIFTH SECTION

Application no. 45159/13 Samanto BRAJDIČ against Slovenia

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 14 October 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Angelika Nußberger, President, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 July 2013,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Samanto Brajdič, is a Slovenian national, who was born in 1986 and lives in Kočevje. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Verce, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana.

The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Andreja Vran.

The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the material conditions of detention in the remand section of Ljubljana Prison and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.

The case was communicated to the respondent Government.

By letter dated 11 July 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of claims for just satisfaction had expired on 11 June 2014 and that no extension of time had been requested. The date for submission of claims for just satisfaction was extended to 22 August 2014. 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’s representative received this letter on 21 July 2014. However, 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.

Stephen Phillips Angelika Nußberger Deputy Registrar President