FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 40230/03
by Alexander Simeonov PETROV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 3 March 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Rait Maruste,
Karel Jungwiert,
Renate Jaeger,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 December 2003,
Having regard to the partial decision of 4 January 2008,
Having regard to the correspondence with the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Alexander Simeonov Petrov, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1934 and lives in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that a set of civil proceedings concerning the restitution of real estate expropriated from his parents had lasted an unreasonable length of time.
By letter dated 16 January 2008, the applicant was invited to notify the Court as to whether he accepted the proposal of a friendly settlement of the case. By letter dated 17 March 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his comments had expired. 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 26 March 2008. 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 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.
Stephen PhillipsPeer Lorenzen
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy