THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1556/10
CODRUL S.R.L.
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 June 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 December 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Codrul S.R.L., is a company incorporated in the Republic of Moldova. It was represented before the Court by Mr A. Furculita, its chief executive officer.
The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.
The applicant company’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning fairness of civil proceedings and an alleged breach of its right of property were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant company, who was invited to submit its own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 22 June 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of its observations had expired on 26 April 2012 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 received this letter on 2 July 2012. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant company may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue its 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 TsirliLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy