European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Sorina Elena MITITELU v Romania - 24583/07 [2011] ECHR 291 (25 January 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/291.html
Cite as: [2011] ECHR 291
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
24583/07
by Sorina Elena MITITELU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25 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 2 April 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Ms. Sorina Elena Mititelu, a Romanian national who was born in 1950 and lives in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the impossibility to exercise her property rights recognised by final and binding decisions of the domestic courts, as the State had sold her immovable property to third parties.
On 26 August 2009 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaint detailed above.
On 13 January 2010 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded on 26 February 2010 to the applicant, who did not reply by the indicated deadline of 9 April 2010. On 30 July 2010 the Registry sent a letter to the applicant notifying her of the expiry of the deadline for submitting observations.
On 6 August 2010 the applicant informed the Court that she wanted to withdraw the application as she had recovered her property through subsequent court proceedings.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
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