European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Augustin RUS v Romania - 21416/05 [2010] ECHR 1532 (21 September 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1532.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1532
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
21416/05
by Augustin RUS
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 September 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabet
Fura,
President,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Ineta
Ziemele, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 May 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Augustin Rus, is a Romanian national who was born in 1935 and lives in Cluj-Napoca. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 February 1956 the Cluj Military County Court sentenced the applicant, who was a Jehovah's Witness, to 8 years' imprisonment for refusing, for religious reasons, to be recruited for mandatory military service.
On an unspecified date, on the ground that his conviction allegedly gave him the status of a person politically persecuted by the communist regime, the applicant brought proceedings against the Cluj Labour and Social Agency seeking under Law-Decree No. 118 of 1990 to be awarded the benefits provided by the said law-decree for politically persecuted persons.
In a final judgment of 22 February 2005 the Cluj Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's action on the ground that the refusal to be recruited to the army was not a political crime in nature and therefore the provisions of the Law-Decree No. 118 of 1990 did not apply in his case.
In a letter of 19 May 2005 the applicant submitted the final court judgment of 26 November 2003 and 25 October 2004 of the Cluj Court of Appeal and the Alba Court of Appeal, respectively, concerning other individuals, and argued that other Jehovah's Witnesses in an identical situation to him had obtained favourable decisions, due to a different interpretation of that issue by those courts of appeal.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention of the unfairness of the hearing before the domestic courts in respect of the determination of his status of politically persecuted person, following his imprisonment during the time of the communist regime for his refusal as a Jehovah's Witness to be recruited for mandatory military service. He claimed that the court of appeal which refused to recognise his status of politically persecuted person and to award him the benefits granted by the Law-Decree No. 118 of 1990 to politically persecuted persons, adopted opposite decisions in identical cases.
The applicant complained in substance under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the proceedings concerning his status of politically persecuted person did not result in the award of the benefits provided by the Law-Decree No. 118 of 1990.
The applicant complained in substance under Article 14 of the Convention taken together with Articles 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the same courts adopted opposite decisions in identical cases concerning Jehovah's Witnesses.
The applicant complained under Article 9 of the Convention about his forcible recruitment to the army during the communist regime.
THE LAW
On 9 March 2009 the President of the Third Section decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant's complaints in respect of Articles 6 § 1 and 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
By letter dated 19 August 2009 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit in reply any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction by 28 September 2009.
By letter dated 16 November 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 28 September 2009 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 the said letter on 19 November 2009. However, no response has been received.
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 Elisabet Fura
Registrar President