FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15518/03
by Sofia Iosifova MIHAILOVA
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 April 2003,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Sofia Iosifova Mihailova, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Kozlodui. She was represented before the Court by Mr K. Petrov, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that the Kozlodui municipal authorities had failed to comply with a final judgment in her favour and that that amounted to an interference with her right to peaceful enjoyment of her possessions.
On 9 October 2007 the Court gave notice of the application to the Government.
On 22 February and 3 April 2008 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.
By letter dated 16 May 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 10 July 2008. The applicant’s representative failed to respond.
By letter of 12 December 2008, sent by registered post to the applicant’s representative, the Court noted, inter alia, that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. Attention was also 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 letter was returned as undelivered because the recipient was no longer at that address.
By letter of 11 February 2009, sent by registered post to the applicant’s last known address, the Court reiterated the information and strike-out warning contained in its letter of 12 December 2008. The letter was received by the applicant on 7 March 2009. She never replied and there has not been any further correspondence in the case.
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.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy