VRANCSIK v. HUNGARY
Doc ref: 16770/07 • ECHR ID: 001-107656
Document date: November 15, 2011
- Inbound citations: 1
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 1
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 16770/07 Tibor VRANCSIK against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights ( Second Section ), sitting on 15 November 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens , President, Danutė Jočienė , Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre , András Sajó , Işıl Karakaş , Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque , Helen Keller , judges, and Stanley Naismith , Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 April 2007 ,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Tibor Vrancsik, wa s a Hungarian national who had been born in 1968 . When introducing the application, he was detained at Szeged Prison.
The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl , Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice .
The applicant complained under various Article s of the Convention about the conversion of his Austrian prison sentence into a Hungarian one.
By a partial decision of 11 October 2011 , the Court decided to give notice to the Hungarian Government of the applicant ’ s complaint .
In a subsequent attempt to obtain the applicant ’ s actual address, the Registry contacted the Departme nt of Penitentia ry Supervision of the Attorney General ’ s Office. In reply, on 17 October 2011 the Department informed the Registry that the applicant had died on 8 June 2008 at Tököl Prison Hospital . According to the autopsy record submitted, his death was due to natural c auses. No relatives or heirs have approached the Court ever since.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant ’ s heir s , if any, do not wish to pursue the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 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 remainder of the application out of its list of cases.
Stanley Naismith Françoise Tulkens Registrar President
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
