THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 4331/02
by Petru BUCUR-VOLK
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4 March 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Elisabet Fura-Sandström,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Luis López Guerra, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 August 2001,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Petru Bucur-Volk, is a Romanian and German national who was born in 1951. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr R.-H. Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 16 June 1999, the applicant was arrested by the border police of the Bucharest Otopeni Airport on charges of illegally crossing the border.
The applicant was travelling by aeroplane to Munich with a valid German passport and an expired Romanian passport. It appears from the minutes of arrest signed both by the border police and the applicant that he was refused permission to board on the ground that his Romanian passport had expired. Notwithstanding the refusal, he crossed the line separating the international area from the rest of the airport. According to the applicant, he was released from detention on 19 June 1999.
On 1 October 1999, after having prolonged his Romanian passport, the applicant attempted again to travel to Munich. However, he was arrested again by the border police because his ticket was not in order. He was released on 3 October 1999. It appears that the applicant was not prosecuted for any offence in connection with these facts.
On an unspecified date, the applicant complained about his illegal detention and asked the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen who had arrested him.
On 16 June 2000, the Bucharest Military Prosecutor’s Office dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that the facts complained about did not disclose the elements of any criminal offence. The applicant appealed against this decision.
On 13 February 2001, the Prosecutor’s Office attached to the Supreme Court of Justice dismissed the applicant’s appeal.
It appears that the applicant lodged, in 2000, an action with the Bucharest District Court seeking compensation for the fact that, on the two occasions, he had been prevented by the employees of the Romanian Air Transport Company from travelling to Munich and had been illegally arrested.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained that his detention was in breach of his right to liberty provided by Article 5 of the Convention since the deprivation did not fall in any of the exceptions listed in Article 5 § 1 (a) to (f).
2. He also argued that the failure of the Prosecutor’s Office to institute criminal proceedings against the policemen who had illegally detained him violated Article 6 of the Convention.
THE LAW
On 9 August 2001, the applicant filled in the application form in the case, indicated an address in Romania and another one in Germany.
On 2 April 2003, the last letter from the applicant indicated, in its heading, a new address in Romania.
On 29 March 2006, the application was communicated to the respondent Government. The applicant was informed of this event in a letter sent to his new address in Romania. He did not reply to this letter.
On 18 June 2007, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s address in Romania. The applicant was requested to submit any observations in reply together with any claims for just satisfaction by 31 July 2007.
As the letter of 18 June was returned to the Court, the Registry sent it again to the applicant’s German address, by registered post, on 3 September 2007, with a note on the extension of the above time-limits for submitting his observations. This letter was returned as well with the mention “not known at this address”.
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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy