by Ovidiu BENDERLIU
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 October 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 July 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
The applicant, Mr. Ovidiu Benderliu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1937 and lives in Iaşi. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr. Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date in January 2001 the applicant lodged a criminal complaint against third parties for theft, destruction of property and seizure of documents. In a letter received by the Registry on 15 April 2004 the applicant informed the Registry that his criminal complaint against third parties was without civil claims.
On 15 January 2001 a third party lodged a criminal complaint against the applicant for misuse of company assets and resources on the basis of Article 26 §§ 2,3 of Law No. 31 of 1990 and claimed civil damages.
On an unspecified date in 2001 the applicant’s apartment, a number of stocks and a bank account in his name were seized pending the resolution of the criminal proceedings brought against the applicant.
On 2 November 2004 the Iaşi District Court quashed the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office of 3 June 2003 to open criminal proceedings against the applicant and ordered the Prosecutor’s Office to reopen the criminal investigation. Both the applicant and the Prosecutor’s Office appealed the decision.
On 7 June 2005 the Iaşi County Court allowed the applicant’s and the Prosecutor’s Office appeals, quashed the decision of 2 November 2004 and ordered the Iaşi District Court to decide on the merits of the case.
On 31 January 2006 the Iaşi County Court acquitted the applicant on points of law in respect of the criminal head of the complaint, however partly allowed on merits the third party’s claim for civil damages. The applicant appealed the decision
On 3 May 2007 the Iaşi County Court rejected on merits the applicant’s appeal.
On 9 May 2007 the applicant further appealed the decision. The proceedings appear to be still pending before the domestic courts.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in respect of the length and the outcome of the criminal proceedings with claims for civil damages brought against him in so far as the courts assessed the evidence and misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions. Under the same article of the Convention the applicant complained of the length and the inaction of the authorities in resolving criminal proceedings brought by the applicant against third parties, without civil claims
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in respect of the seizure of the applicant’s movable and immovable property for the duration of the criminal proceedings.
On 23 January 2009 the application was communicated to the Government and both parties were asked to inform the Court by 19 March 2009 whether they agree to sign the declaration of friendly settlement attached to the communication letter. The declaration of friendly settlement was signed by the Government on 11 March 2009.
On 1 April 2009, since the applicant did neither answer the Court’s letter of 23 January 2009 nor did he acknowledge it as received and since the Registry staff was unable to contact him by phone as the number provided by the applicant is no longer in use, the above mentioned letter and the accompanying documents were sent once more by registered post to the address provided by the applicant. However, the envelope was returned as “unknown”.
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.
Santiago Quesada Josep Casadevall