SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 36711/05
by Roland GREGORICS
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 October 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria,
Kristina Pardalos,
Guido Raimondi, judges,
and Stanley Naismith, Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 October 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Roland Gregorics, a Hungarian national who was born in 1978 and lives in Budapest. He is represented before the Court by Mr Z. Kemenczei, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by
Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length and fairness of criminal proceedings conducted against him.
The applicant's fairness complaint was 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 his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry's letter.
By letter dated 23 October 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant's representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 6 October 2008 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. However, no response has been received. Upon enquiry by the Registry, the applicant's representative confirmed on 24 September 2010 that the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing the case.
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.
Stanley NaismithFrançoise Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy