FOURTH SECTION
\nDECISION
\nApplication no. 20346\/15
\nStephen GALLI
\nagainst Malta<\/p>\n
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16\u00a0January 2018 as a Chamber composed of:<\/p>\n
Ganna Yudkivska, President,
\nVincent A. De Gaetano,
\nPaulo Pinto de Albuquerque,
\nFaris Vehabovi\u0107,
\nEgidijus K\u016bris,
\nIulia Motoc,
\nMarko Bo\u0161njak, judges,<\/p>\n
and Andrea Tamietti, DeputySection Registrar,<\/p>\n
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 July 2015,<\/p>\n
Having deliberated, decides as follows:<\/p>\n
FACTS AND PROCEDURE<\/strong><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant, Mr Stephen Galli, has dual nationality, Maltese and American. He was born in 1964 and is detained at the Corradino Correctional Facility in Paola, Malta.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant was initially unrepresented. Subsequently, he was represented by Dr V. Bugeja\u2013 from the legal aid office in Malta \u2011 and was later unrepresented. The Maltese Government (\u201cthe Government\u201d) were represented by their Agent, Dr\u00a0P.\u00a0Grech, Attorney General.<\/p>\n 3.\u00a0\u00a0The applicant alleged that he had suffered a violation of Article\u00a03 in respect of the conditions of his detention.<\/p>\n 4.\u00a0\u00a0On 25 February 2016 the complaint was communicated to the Government.<\/p>\n 5.\u00a0\u00a0On the same day the applicant, who was unrepresented, was invited to appoint a lawyer and to return the respective authority form by 12\u00a0May\u00a02016. Various problems arose in this connection (see paragraphs\u00a08 to\u00a010 below).<\/p>\n 6.\u00a0\u00a0On 28 February 2017 the President of the Section to which the case had been allocated decided that the applicant\u2019s legal representative from the legal aid office in Malta, should no longer represent or assist the applicant (Rule 36 \u00a7 4 (b) of the Rules of Court) and that the applicant should be allowed to represent himself (Rule\u00a036 \u00a7\u00a04\u00a0(b) of the Rules of Court). The President of the Section also decided to communicate a complaint under Article 34 of the Convention to the respondent Government.<\/p>\n THE LAW<\/strong><\/p>\n 7.\u00a0\u00a0Article 37 of the Convention reads as follows:<\/p>\n \u201c1.\u00a0The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that<\/p>\n (a)\u00a0\u00a0the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or<\/p>\n (b)\u00a0\u00a0the matter has been resolved; or<\/p>\n (c)\u00a0\u00a0for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application.<\/p>\n However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0The Court may decide to restore an application to its list of cases if it considers that the circumstances justify such a course.\u201d<\/p>\n 8.\u00a0\u00a0Following communication of the complaint under Article 3 and a request to send an authority form, on\u00a013\u00a0May 2016 the Court received an incomplete authority form. In consequence the applicant was again invited to submit a complete authority form by 16 June 2016. In the absence of a reply, the applicant was again asked \u2011 by means of a letter, sent by registered post, on 11\u00a0July 2016 \u2011 to submit the relevant form by 1\u00a0August 2016. It was noted that failure to return the form might lead the Court to conclude that he was no longer interested in pursuing his application and to strike it out of its list of cases.<\/p>\n 9.\u00a0\u00a0On 1 August 2016 the Court received a completed authority form designating Dr V. Bugeja as legal representative from the legal aid office in Malta. The applicant explained that both the prison authorities and his lawyer had made it difficult for him to obtain the document. After the Government\u2019s observations were received, they were sent to the applicant\u2019s legal representative on 13 October 2016 in order for him to submit the applicant\u2019s observations in reply and just satisfaction claims on his behalf by 24 November 2016.<\/p>\n 10.\u00a0\u00a0In the absence of any reply, it was noted in a letter sent by registered post on 7 December 2016 to the applicant\u2019s representative that the period for submission of the observations in reply had expired and that no extension had been requested. Attention was drawn to Article 37 \u00a7 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. It was also noted that, should there be reasons explaining why submissions on his client\u2019s behalf were outstanding, he should inform the Court accordingly by 12\u00a0January 2017at the latest,presenting those submissions by the same date. The President would then decide whether to accept them and add them to the file. From the postal information available to the Registry it appeared that delivery had failed twice as the addressee had not been available, and that the applicant\u2019s legal representative had failed to collect the correspondence from the post office, despite three notifications to that effect. The correspondence was returned to the Court on 9 February 2017, having remained undelivered.<\/p>\n 11.\u00a0\u00a0Given the repeated failings of the applicant\u2019s legal representative from the legal aid office in Malta, on 28\u00a0February 2017 the President of the Section to which the case was allocated decided that the applicant\u2019s legal representative from the legal aid office in Malta should no longer represent or assist the applicant (Rule\u00a036 \u00a7\u00a04 (b) of the Rules of Court) and that the applicant should be allowed to represent himself (Rule 36 \u00a7 4 (b) of the Rules of Court). The President of the Section also decided that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of a complaint under Article\u00a034 of the Convention, according to which the High Contracting Parties undertake not to hinder in any way the effective exercise of this right. The Government were requested to comment as to whether the acts and omissions of the applicant\u2019s representative appointed under the domestic legal aid system were imputable to the State, and in consequence whether there had been any hindrance by the State in the effective exercise of the applicant\u2019s right of application, as ensured by Article\u00a034 of the Convention. Attention was drawn to the fact that various similar problems had been encountered in cases pending before the Court in which the applicants were being represented by legal representatives from the legal aid office in Malta.<\/p>\n 12.\u00a0\u00a0After the Government\u2019s observations had been received, they were sent to the applicant \u2013 at that stage unrepresented, but who had been allowed to represent himself \u2012 inviting him to submit observations by\u00a030\u00a0May 2017. No reply having been received, it was noted in a letter sent by registered post on 18 August 2017 that the period for submission of the observations in reply had expired and that no extension had been requested. Attention was drawn to Article 37 \u00a7 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. It was also noted that, should there be reasons to explain why submissions were outstanding, he should inform the Court accordingly by 15\u00a0September\u00a02017at the latestand present the submissions by the same date. The President would then decide whether to accept them and add them to the file. From the postal information available to the Registry it appears that the letter had been received by the Corradino Correctional Facility on 26\u00a0August 2017 and a receipt had been signed by NC\u00a0148. However, no reply from the applicant has been received by the Court. Thus, no submissions have ever been received by the Court in connection with his complaints.<\/p>\n 13.\u00a0\u00a0The Court emphasises its concerns about the acts and omissions of the applicant\u2019s representative appointed under the domestic legal aid system, which are similar to those described in some other applications brought before the Court where the applicants are being assisted by lawyers provided via the legal aid system in Malta, and the fact that such a situation could result in a hindrance by the State of the effective exercise of an applicant\u2019s right of application, as ensured by Article 34 of the Convention. However, given the applicant\u2019s lack of response, and in the absence of any claim on his part and of his own motion that he had not received any correspondence from the Court \u2012 which would indicate that the letters sent to him recently by the Court had not reached him \u2012 the Court considers that, in the circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article\u00a037 \u00a7 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article\u00a037 \u00a7 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. The Court observes, moreover, that if the circumstances justify such a course of action, the applicant can request that the application be restored to the list of cases under Article\u00a037 \u00a7 2 of the Convention (see V.M. and Others v.\u00a0Belgium [GC], no. 60125\/11, \u00a7\u00a039, 17\u00a0November 2016, and Mahamud\u00a0Ahmed v.\u00a0Malta (dec.), no.\u00a068883\/13, \u00a7\u00a021, 3\u00a0October 2017).<\/p>\n 14.\u00a0\u00a0In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.<\/p>\n For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,<\/p>\n Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.<\/p>\n Done in English and notified in writing on 8 February 2018.<\/p>\n Andrea Tamietti\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ganna Yudkivska
\nDeputy Registrar\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 President<\/p>\n