THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33599/03
Eugen CONSTANTINESCU-RITTER against Romania
and 3 other applications
(see list appended)
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 April 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan, President,
Ineta Ziemele,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 3 October 2003, 13 March and 19 September 2006 and 14 February 2008 respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants, Mr Eugen Constantinescu-Ritter, Mr Adrian Toader, S.C. Costdan S.R.L. (represented by Mr Bebe Danilă) and Mr Aurel Badilă are Romanian nationals and a company under Romanian law who reside in Lugoj, Brasov, Galati and Copaciu respectively. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicants in applications nos. 33599/03 and 40409/06 complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the alleged infringement of their effective access to court due to the use of service by affixation.
The applicant in application no. 13284/06 complained about the length of civil proceedings.
The applicant in application no. 16269/08 complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the alleged infringement of their effective access to court due to the amount of court fees imposed.
The applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits or declarations for friendly settlement. The observations and the friendly settlement declarations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations or present their position on the conditions of the friendly settlement. No replies were received to the Registry’s letters.
By letters dated 3, 9 and 14 November 2011 and 2 February 2012 respectively, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the periods allowed for submission of their replies had expired on 29 July, 2 September and 16 November 2011 respectively and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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. However, no responses have been received.
THE LAW
Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to join them.
The Court considers that, in the above circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Marialena TsirliAlvina Gyulumyan
Deputy RegistrarPresident
List of applications
33599/03Constantinescu-Ritter v. Romania13284/06Toader v. Romania40409/06S.C. Costdan S.R.L. v. Romania16269/08Bădilă v. Romania
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy