THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 14872/10
by Mihaela Catalina BUZEA
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 22 November 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Ineta Ziemele,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 March 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Mihaela Catalina Buzea, is a Romanian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Buzău. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan Horaţiu Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant raised complaints under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention in relation with divorce proceedings. The complaint under Article 8 concerning the applicant’s right to have contact with her son was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit her observations in reply. The applicant did not reply to the Registry’s letter.
By a letter dated 20 June 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations and claims for just satisfaction had expired on 27 May 2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. 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 did not respond to the letter.
Moreover, on the basis of the information submitted by the Government, it appears that on 10 May 2010 the applicant lodged a separate action with the Buzău District Court seeking the establishment of her right to have personal contact with her son. On 14 June 2010 her action was allowed by a judgment which became final on 21 July 2010 when the appeal on points of law lodged by her husband was dismissed.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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 TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy