European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 26918/06
by Vasilica TANASESCU
against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 20 September 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Alvina Gyulumyan, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 May 2006,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Vasilica Tanasescu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1939 and lives in Ploiesti. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Co-Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit her own observations and just satisfaction claims. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

By letter dated 4 October 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 30 April 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 this letter on 12 October 2010. However, no response has been received.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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.

Marialena Tsirli Alvina Gyulumyan
Deputy Registrar President