European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Dan Nicolae CONSTANTINESCU v Romania - 16030/08 [2011] ECHR 233 (18 January 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/233.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 233
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
16030/08
by Dan Nicolae CONSTANTINESCU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabet
Fura,
President,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Ineta
Ziemele, judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli, Deputy
Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 March 2008,
and the applicant’s reply to that declaration,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Dan Nicolae Constantinescu, a Romanian national who was born in 1933 and lives in Bucharest. He was represented before the Court by Ms Angelica Enache, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr.Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, from the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant submitted restitution application to the administrative authority claiming return of his property or, alternatively, compensation. However, he did not receive any answer.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (right to access to a court and length of administrative proceedings) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (property rights) were 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 his observations in reply. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 28 July 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 13 July 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’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’s representative received this letter on 3 August 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 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 application.
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 Elisabet Fura
Deputy Registrar President