FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 12438/04
by Mariusz CZAJKOWSKI
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 30 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Fatoş Aracı, 
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 March 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Mariusz Czajkowski, is a Polish national who was born in 1977.
A.  The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1.  Proceedings concerning the applicant's registration
On 30 December 1999 the Koluszki Municipality (Urząd Miejski) decided to delete the applicant's name from the register of persons living in a certain house at Stefanów no. 29 (wymeldowanie). The decision was delivered as a result of administrative proceedings initiated upon the request of the applicant's grandmother, who submitted that the applicant had abandoned his place of residence.
On 30 December 2002 the Mayor (Burmistrz) of the Koluszki Municipality refused to renew the applicant's registration at the address in question as requested by the applicant. It was explained that the applicable law allowed only for the registration of a person who actually resided at a given address. In the meantime, the applicant was away, serving his prison sentence.
On 16 January 2004 the applicant sued the Mayor of the Koluszki Municipal and Commune Office (Burmistrz Miasta i Gminy) for compensation for moral damage allegedly suffered after the loss of his registration at Stefanów no. 29.
On 14 April 2004 the Łódź Regional Court (Sąd Okręgowy) ordered the applicant to complete his application by furnishing certain documents, describing the circumstances of the case and providing evidence to justify and support his claim.
On 25 June 2004 the Łódź Regional Court returned the applicant's claim (zwrot pozwu) because of his failure to complete his application.
The applicant did not pursue his civil case any further.
2.  Conditions of the applicant's detention
On an unspecified date in 2002 the applicant was convicted by an unspecified criminal court and sentenced to a term of imprisonment.
From 14 August 2002 to 5 August 2003 he was detained in Warsaw‑Białołęka Remand Centre.
From 5 August to 17 November 2003 he was held in Garbalin Prison.
From 17 November to 17 December 2003 he was held in Łęczyca Prison.
It appears that from 17 December 2003 to an unspecified date in September 2004 the applicant was held in Łódź Remand Centre.
Finally, on an unspecified date in September 2004 the applicant was transferred to Łowicz Prison.
On 27 July 2006 he was released home.
The applicant submitted that all the detention establishments in which he had been held were severely overcrowded and that the furniture and equipment inside the cells were old and shabby. The applicant claimed that due to the overcrowding he did not have any privacy and he could not find any peace and quiet to write letters, prepare for his trial or to study.
In a letter of 9 January 2006 the Director of the Łódź Regional Inspectorate of the Prison Service (Okręgowy Inspektorat Służby Więziennej) informed the applicant that his complaint about the inadequate conditions of his confinement in Łódź Prison had been considered ill‑founded. It was acknowledged that the prison in question was overcrowded and that the latter resulted in the reduction of cell space to less than the statutory three square metres per prisoner. On the other hand, it was emphasised that the measure of reducing cell space per detainee taken by the prison authorities had been necessitated by the difficult situation in the country's prisons and had been in compliance with the law.
B.  Relevant domestic law and practice
Detention and prison establishments in Poland are supervised by penitentiary judges who act under the authority of the Minister of Justice.
Article 40 of the Constitution reads:
“No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Article 41 of the Constitution, in its relevant part, provides:
“4. Anyone deprived of liberty shall be treated in a humane manner.”
Article 110 of the Code of Execution of Criminal Sentences (Kodeks karny wykonawczy – “the Code”) provides:
“1. A sentenced person shall be placed in an individual cell or a cell shared with other inmates.
2. The area of the cell shall be no less than 3 square metres per detainee.”
Article 248 of the Code provides:
“1. In particularly justified cases a governor of a prison or remand centre may decide to place detainees, for a specified period of time, in conditions where the area of the cell is less than 3 square metres per person. Any such decision shall be promptly communicated to a penitentiary judge.
2. The Minister of Justice shall determine, by means of an ordinance, the rules which are to be followed by the relevant authorities in a situation where the number of persons detained in prisons and remand centres exceeds on a nationwide scale the overall capacity of such establishments ...”
On the basis of Article 248 of the Code, the Minister of Justice issued the Ordinance of 26 October 2000 on the rules to be followed by the relevant authorities when the number of persons detained in prisons and remand centres exceeded on a nationwide scale the overall capacity of such establishments (Rozporządzenie Ministra Sprawiedliwości w sprawie trybu postępowania właściwych organów w wypadku, gdy liczba osadzonych w zakładach karnych lub aresztach śledczych przekroczy w skali kraju ogólną pojemność tych zakładów – “the 2000 Ordinance”). On 26 August 2003 the Minister of Justice issued a new ordinance with the same title (“the 2003 Ordinance”), which replaced the previous ordinance. It entered into force on 1 September 2003.
Paragraph 1.1 of this Ordinance provided:
“In the event that the number of detainees placed in prisons and remand centres, as well as in subordinate detention facilities, hereinafter referred to as 'establishments', exceeds on a nationwide scale the overall capacity of such establishments, the Director General of the Prison Service, within seven days from the day the capacity is exceeded, shall convey the relevant information to the Minister of Justice, the regional directors of the Prison Service and the governors of the establishments ...”
Paragraph 2 of the Ordinance read:
“1. Having received the relevant information, the regional director of the prison service and the governor of the establishment are under a duty, each within their own sphere of competence, to take action in order to adapt quarters not otherwise included in the establishment's [accommodation] capacity, to comply with the conditions required for a cell.
...
3. In the event that the establishment's capacity is exceeded, detainees shall be placed in supplementary cells for a specified period of time.
4. In the event that the additional accommodation in the supplementary cells is used up, detainees may be placed in conditions where the area of a cell is less than 3 square metres per person.”

COMPLAINTS
1.  On 2 March 2004 the applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that the local authorities had decided to delete his name from the register of persons living at a certain address.
2.  In addition, on 30 January 2006 the applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about the conditions of his detention in Warsaw‑Białołęka and Łódź Remand Centres, as well as in Garbalin, Łęczyca and Łowicz Prisons.
THE LAW
By letter dated 14 March 2008 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 25 April 2008.
By letter dated 20 June 2008, sent by registered post to the applicant's home address, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 25 April 2008 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. On 26 June 2008 the letter was claimed by the applicant's brother. However, no response has been received. 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 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	Nicolas Bratza
	Deputy Registrar	President