THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 60168/09
Emil CUCOS
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 17 September 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 6 November 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Emil Cucos, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1977 and lives in Chișinău. He was represented before the Court by Institutul Legislației Și Dreptului Comparat, a non-governmental organisation based in Chișinău.
The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the examination by the Chișinău Court of Appeal of a late appeal lodged by the opposing party.
The applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government, who informed the Registry that they did not intend to submit observations concerning the present application, in light of the Court’s case-law concerning the matter under examination.
Accordingly, on 18 April 2011 the applicant was invited to submit his claims for just satisfaction. However, his representative did not reply.
By a registered letter of 25 June 2012 the applicant’s representative was informed that the period for submission of the applicant’s claims for just satisfaction had expired and that no extension of the period for making such submissions had been asked for. 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’s representative received this letter on 3 July 2012. 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