FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31071/07
Friedrich HARTH against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11 September 2012 as a Committee composed of:
George Nicolaou, President,
Ledi Bianku,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 July 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Friedrich Harth, is a German national, who was born in 1938 and lives in Ravadinovo. He is represented before the Court by Ms Y. Vandova and Ms I. Gencheva, lawyers practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Kotzeva of the Ministry of Justice.
In a letter of 7 November 2011 the applicant informed the Registry that both Ms Y. Vandova and Ms I. Gencheva continued to represent him in relation to his application.
On 15 February 2012 notice of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 about the length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of lack of an effective remedy in respect of the length was given to the Government and the parties were invited to secure a friendly settlement. The letter to the applicant was sent to the address of Ms Y. Vandova. The applicant’s representative did not reply to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 26 April 2012, sent by registered mail, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s position regarding the friendly-settlement proposal had expired on 9 April 2012 and that no extension of the time-limit had been requested. Her 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 registered mail return receipt was received by the Court on 21 May 2012 with a note that the letter had been delivered on 2 May 2012. However, no response has been received ever since.
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.
Fatoş AracıGeorge Nicolaou
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy