THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3312/11
Vasile COLESNIC
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 October 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 24 December 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Vasile Colesnic, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Şoldăneşti. He was represented before the Court by Mr C. Ciobanu, a lawyer practising in Chişinău.
The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.
The applicant’s complaint under Article 3 concerning the effectiveness of an investigation into his allegations of ill-treatment by a third person 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 his observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 7 June 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 18 February 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’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’s representative received this letter on 14 June 2013. 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.
Marialena TsirliLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy