THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11816/05
Nuta FLOREA
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 21 January 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan, President,
Kristina Pardalos,
Johannes Silvis, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 March 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Nuta Florea, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Bucharest. She was represented before the Court by the Organizația Naționala Pentru Apărarea Drepturilor Omului, an NGO based in Bucharest.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention were 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 her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 14 May 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 7 January 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 Court’s letter remained unclaimed and 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 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.
Marialena TsirliAlvina Gyulumyan
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy