THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 9104/03
by Nicolae DAVID
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
9 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Alvina Gyulumyan,
Egbert Myjer,
Luis López Guerra,
Ann Power, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 February 2003,
Having regard to the decision to examine jointly the admissibility and merits of the case (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having regard to the fact that the German Government, having been informed of the application in accordance with Article 36 § 1 of the Convention, indicated that they did not wish to participate in the proceedings,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Nicolae David, is a Romanian and German national who was born in 1947 and lives in Sankt Augustin. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 25 June 1999 the applicant together with P.G. brought an action for the annulment of registration performed in 1962 in the Land Register in respect of a property.
On 8 November 1999 the Sibiu Regional Court allowed the action, acknowledged that the nationalisation of the building had been unlawful, annulled the registration in the Land Register and ordered restoration in the name of M.A., the applicant’s grandmother. The solution was upheld on 29 February 2000 by the Alba Iulia Court of Appeal and on
28 February 2001 by a final decision of the Supreme Court of Justice.
Before the judgment of 8 November 1999 became final, the State had sold the flats making up the building to the then tenants, under
Law no. 112/1995.
On 23 August 2001 the judge in charge of the Land Register attached to the Sibiu Court of First Instance ordered that the situation existing before 1962 be restored in the Land Register and acknowledged that the owner of the property was M.A.
On 3 September 2002 the applicant requested the President of the Sibiu Regional Court to enforce that judgment.
On 16 September 2002 the President of the Sibiu Regional Court acknowledged that the registration in the Land Register had not included the whole building, as ordered by the judgment of 8 November 1999, due to the fact that after that judgment the flats making up the property had been registered in the name of third persons. Therefore, the President informed the applicant of the possibility to lodge an appeal against the interlocutory decision of 23 August 2001.
On 7 October 2002 the applicant reiterated the request to the President of the Sibiu Regional Court to enforce that judgment.
On 1 November 2004 the Sibiu Court of First Instance upheld the applicant’s request for the rescission of the sale contract regarding one of the flats, purchased by S.C.R. and S.S.M. That judgment became final on 19 May 2005.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he had been deprived of his possessions.
The applicant complained in substance of non-enforcement of a final judgment (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention).
THE LAW
By letter dated 25 April 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit his observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 6 June 2008.
By letter dated 24 June 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 6 June 2008 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 2008. However, no response has been received.
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.
Stanley NaismithJosep Casadevall
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy