European Court of Human Rights

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 27194/03
Roman COPIL
against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 March 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Ján Šikuta, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 July 2003,

Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Roman Copil, is a Romanian national who was born in 1970 and before his arrest, lived in Timişoara. At the date of the last communication to the Court, he was serving his sentence in Arad Prison. He is represented before the Court by Mr Victor Mihai Bălăşoiu, a lawyer practising in Arad. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms Irina Cambrea, of the Ministry of Foreign Affaires.

The applicant complained mainly, under Article 6 of the Convention, about an alleged infringement of the right to a fair trial and under Article 8 of the Convention about the alleged refusal of the prison authorities to grant him leave to attend his mother’s funeral or to sit university exams.

On 6 October 2010 the applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government whose observations in reply were forwarded to the applicant on 2 March 2011; the latter was invited to submit his own observations by 13 April 2011.

On 10 March 2011 the applicant’ lawyer asked the Court to send him a copy of the Government’s observations.

The Registry sent the observations again, once on 4 May 2011 and again on 11 August 2011, on the latter date through registered post.

No reply to the Registry’s letters was received within the time-limits set by the Court and the applicant’s lawyer failed to collect the registered letter of 11 August 2011 from the post office.

Neither the applicant nor his lawyer informed the Court of any change in their address or situation.

THE LAW

In the circumstances of the case, the Court considers that 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 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 Ján Šikuta
Deputy Registrar President