FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 7524/08
Krzysztof ŁUKJANIONOK
against Poland
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 29 November 2011 as a Committee composed of:
	George Nicolaou, President,
	Ledi Bianku,
	Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 January 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Krzysztof Łukjanionok, is a Polish national who was born in 1969 and lives in Wroclaw. The Polish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Wołąsiewicz of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained in particular under Article 5 § 3 of the Convention about the excessive length of his detention on remand. 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 to the Registry’s letter.
By letters dated 24 June 2011 and 22 September 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 10 May 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 received these letters on 30 June 2011 and 26 September 2011 respectively. 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.
	Fatoş Aracı	George Nicolaou
	Deputy Registrar	President