THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36815/02
by Cornelia Livia DRĂGUŞIN
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 October 2011 as a Chamber composed of:
Josep Casadevall, President,
Corneliu Bîrsan,
Egbert Myjer,
Ján Šikuta,
Ineta Ziemele,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 May 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Cornelia Livia Drăguşin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant’s last address to the Court dates from 10 February 2007.
Following a request for factual information addressed by the Court to the Government, on 26 February 2008 the applicant’s complaints concerning the alleged refusal of the authorities to provide her with an identity card and the alleged lack of access to court were communicated to the Government, under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention.
On 19 June 2008 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.
Between May 2008 and March 2009, the Court sent four letters to the applicant, inviting her to designate a representative, in accordance with paragraph 4 (a) of Rule 36 of the Rules of Court. 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 letters were sent both in English and Romanian. Two of these letters, sent by registered post, returned to the Court as “unclaimed” and the other letters remained unanswered.
On 18 March 2009 the Court asked the Bucharest Bar Association to help the applicant find suitable counsel, but the Bar Association did not reply.
It appears, from the documents submitted by the Government, that the applicant’s family has difficulties in keeping contact with her, as she refuses to open her door to any guests or to answer their calls.
THE LAW
The Court cannot find any means to communicate information, including the Govenrnment’s observations, to the applicant who has failed to keep abreast with the Court proceedings since 2007.
In these circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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.
Santiago QuesadaJosep Casadevall
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy