European Court of Human Rights

FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 7948/04
by SD ARGUS-TSENDOV, DZHONOV AND CO AND STANCHEVA
against Bulgaria

The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 May 2011 as a Committee composed of:

Ljiljana Mijović, President,
Lech Garlicki,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 March 2004,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant company, SD Argus – Tsendov, Dzhonov and Co., is a Bulgarian partnership, set up in 1990 and with its registered office in Montana. The applicant, Lidia Raykova Stancheva, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1963 and lives in Sofia. She is also the applicant company’s representative. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs N. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice.

The applicant company submitted complaints under Article 6 § 1 and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The applicant submitted a complaint under Article 8.

The applicant company’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the authorities’ refusal to recognise its alleged right to deduct input VAT for 1997 was communicated to the Government who were invited to submit their position regarding the reaching of a friendly settlement. The applicant company was invited to submit its position regarding the reaching of a friendly settlement by 20 January 2011. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.

By letter dated 15 March 2011, sent by registered post to the address of the representative of the applicant company, the latter was notified that the period allowed for submission of its position regarding the reaching of a friendly settlement had expired on 20 January 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant company’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 letter was returned with a note by the Bulgarian Post Office that the addressee no longer resided at that address. The Court notes in this respect that the applicant company’s representative has not informed it of a change to her address.

The applicants’ last communication to the Court dates back to 1 March 2004.

THE LAW

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

Fatoş Aracı Ljiljana Mijović
Deputy Registrar President