FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 37723/08
M.T.
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 January 2012 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Päivi Hirvelä,
George Nicolaou,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 July 2008,
Having regard to the correspondence with the parties,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms M.T., is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1977 and lives in Sofia. The President of the Section granted the applicant’s request that her identity should not be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 3).
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs N. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 3 of the Convention about alleged ill-treatment in a police station, the ensuing handcuffing to a lamp‑post and the lack of an effective investigation in this respect. She further complained under Article 13 that she did not have effective domestic remedies at her disposal and, in particular, that she could not obtain compensation.
The applicant sent her first letter to the Court on 21 July 2008 and the application form on 12 February 2009.
On 9 December 2010 notice of the application was given to the Government. By letter of the same day the applicant was informed of this communication. By letter of 24 March 2011 the applicant’s representative, Ms D. Fartunova, informed the Court that in February 2009 the applicant withdrew her power of attorney. She also submitted a declaration on behalf of the applicant, dated 24 August 2009, certifying the withdrawal of the power of attorney and providing an address for correspondence with the Court. Ms Fartunova contended that at that time she had instructed the applicant to communicate the change in her circumstances to the Court but apparently to no avail. Ms Fartunova further stated that she had tried to serve the Court’s letter of 9 December 2010 on the applicant but the latter had refused to accept it, questioning its credibility. Lastly, the applicant’s former representative requested the Court to send all future correspondence to the address provided in the above-mentioned declaration.
By letter dated 15 April 2011 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant at the designated address. She was requested to submit by 25 May 2011 observations in reply, together with any claims for just satisfaction. As the applicant did not reply to that letter, by further letters, dated 28 July and 23 September 2011 and sent by registered post, the applicant’s attention was drawn to the fact that the time-limit for submitting observations and claims for just satisfaction had expired, and that no extension of time has been requested. She was reminded that, under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court may strike a case out of its list where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. In September 2011 and 16 November 2011, respectively, those letters were returned to the Court as undeliverable. The reasons for the failure to deliver them were not specified.
THE LAW
The Court considers that the only communications of the applicant with the Court were her first letter, lodged on 12 July 2008, and the application form, lodged on 12 February 2009. It appears that around the time the application form was sent the applicant withdrew her representative’s power of attorney. She never informed the Court about it. Also, despite being aware of the Court’s attempts to reach her, the applicant has not informed the Court about changes in her address or any other circumstances regarding her application. Bearing in mind that Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court requires applicants to keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application, the Court considers that the applicant may be regarded as no longer intending to pursue the 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.
Lawrence EarlyLech Garlicki
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy