European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Georgi Stefanov DRENSKI and Others v Bulgaria - 28957/04 [2010] ECHR 1748 (5 October 2010)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1748.html
Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1748
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
28957/04
by Georgi Stefanov DRENSKI and Others
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 5 October 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Rait
Maruste,
President,
Mark
Villiger,
Zdravka
Kalaydjieva,
judges,
and Stephen Phillips,
Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 July 2004,
Having regard to the correspondence with the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged on 20 July 2004 by Mr Georgi Stefanov Drenski, Ms Nadezhda Stefanova Drenska and Mr Dimitar Stefanov Drenski, Bulgarian nationals who were born in 1934, 1928 and 1931 respectively and who live(d) in Sofia and Dupnitsa. The first applicant was acting on behalf of the second and the third applicants. They were not legally represented.
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms R. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicants complained, in particular, that the national courts had refused to examine a civil claim which they wished to bring against relatives of theirs who had allegedly interfered unlawfully with their property rights and against the authorities.
After notice of the application was given to the Government, by a letter dated 24 February 2010 and sent by registered post, their observations were transmitted to the applicants, who were requested to submit, by 21 April 2010, observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction. As the applicants did not reply to that letter, by further letter, dated 23 July 2010 and sent by registered post to the address which the first applicant had indicated and to another address of his featuring in the case file, the applicants’ attention was drawn to the fact that the time limit for submitting observations and claims had expired, and that no extension of time had been requested. They were reminded that, under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court may strike a case out of its list where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicants do not intend to pursue the application. On 5 August 2010 the letter sent to the first address was received back at the Court with a note by the Bulgarian Post Office that the addressee had died. On 27 August 2010 the letter sent to the second address was received back at the Court with a note by the Bulgarian Post Office that it had not been sought by the addressee. The second and the third applicants have to date not resumed correspondence with the Court.
THE LAW
In cases in which an applicant dies in the course of the proceedings, the Court, as a rule, takes into account the statements of his or her heirs or close family members who express the wish to pursue the proceedings. If, on the other hand, there is no heir or close relative who has expressed such wish, the Court’s practice is to strike the application out of its list of cases (see Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, §§ 22 and 23, ECHR 2003 IX, with further references). From the developments set out above it appears that the first applicant died during the course of the proceedings. The second and third applicants, who were represented by him, have not expressed a wish to pursue the application and have not replied to the Court’s letters inviting them to submit observations and claims for just satisfaction. In view of this and bearing in mind that Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court requires applicants to keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application, the Court considers that the second and the third applicants may be regarded as no longer intending to pursue the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention and Rule 44E of the Rules of Court. As the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights which require the continued examination of the case (contrast Karner, cited above, §§ 24 28), it considers it appropriate to strike the application out of its list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen Phillips Rait Maruste
Deputy Registrar President
