European Court of Human Rights

FIFTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 72912/01
by Bozhidar Yordanov PETROV
against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:

Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 December 2000,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Bozhidar Yordanov Petrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1952 and lives in Varna. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Obretenov of the Ministry of Justice.

Judge Kalaydjieva, the judge elected in respect of Bulgaria, withdrew from sitting in the case (Rule 28 of the Rules of Court). On 1 October 2008, the Government, pursuant to Rule 29 § 1 (a), informed the Court that they had appointed in her stead another elected judge, namely Judge Lazarova Trajkovska.

The applicant complained, relying on Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 6 of the Convention, that he had been arbitrarily deprived of the property of an apartment his parents had bought from the State in 1969. The complaint is of the type examined by the Court in its Velikovi and Others v. Bulgaria judgement (nos. 43278/98, 45437/99, 48014/99, 48380/99, 51362/99, 53367/99, 60036/00, 73465/01 and 194/02, 15 March 2007).

On 5 December 2007 the Court sent a letter to the applicant informing him that notice of the application had been given to the Government of Bulgaria.

By letter dated 4 June 2008 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was invited to submit, by 29 July 2008, any observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction.

On 3 November 2008 copies of the letters of 5 December 2007 and 4 June 2008 and the relevant enclosures were sent to the applicant's new address. He was invited to reply by 19 December 2008 and advised that if he failed to reply within the time-limit the Court might conclude that he did not intend to pursue the application and strike the case out of its list of cases.

The letter of 3 November 2008, which was sent by registered post, was received by the applicant on 6 November 2008. No reply has been received.

The latest communication from the applicant has been of September 2007.

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.

Stephen Phillips Peer Lorenzen
Deputy Registrar President