THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 56594/13
Olga NAGY
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Johannes Silvis, President,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc,
Carlo Ranzoni, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 August 2013,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Olga Nagy, is a German national, who was born in 1976 and currently lives in Gaggenau, Germany.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention about the manner in which the domestic courts had established contact rights in favour of her child’s grandparents.
The applicant’s complaints 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 21 May 2015, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 7 May 2015 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’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 applicant received this letter on 3 June 2015.
On 14 August 2015 the applicant informed the Court that she had left Romania in 2014, and that since spring 2015 her whole family had moved with her in Germany.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant has failed to show in a timely manner that she wished to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Nothing in her letter of 14 August 2015 allows the Court to reach a different conclusion. Moreover, the fact that she was able to leave the country with the whole family despite a court order regulating visiting times with her child in favour of the grandparents, gives reasons to believe that the matter has been resolved, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (b) of the Convention. Lastly, 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 22 October 2015.
Marialena TsirliJohannes Silvis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy