FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31151/06
Angel Kirilov NEDYALKOV
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19 June 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Päivi Hirvelä, President,
Ledi Bianku,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 July 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Angel Kirilov Nedyalkov, is a Bulgarian national, who was born in 1955 and lives in Sofia. He is represented before the Court by Mrs M. Vasileva, a lawyer practising in Sofia.
The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about his alleged inability to request amendments to the status of his land due to a moratorium on changes in land designation and construction in certain town areas. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 that the domestic courts had refused to examine on the merits the applicant’s appeal against the chief architect’s tacit refusal to allow such changes.
The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government on 31 March 2011, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. On 18 October 2011 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 30 January 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 28 November 2011 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. On 27 February 2012 that letter was received back at the Court with a note by the Bulgarian Post Office that it had not been sought by the addressee.
Neither the applicant nor his legal representatives have to date resumed correspondence with the Court.
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 AracıPäivi Hirvelä
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy