THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 39982/09
Aurel Constantin PARALESCU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 2 October 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 June 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Aurel Constantin Paralescu, is a Romanian national, who was born on an unspecified date and lives in Sanoviţa. He is represented before the Court by Ms C. Obîrşanu, a lawyer practising in Timişoara.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicant complained that the proceedings brought by him in order to contest a fine received were unfair. He argued that the domestic courts failed to examine an essential argument that he had raised before them. In addition, he contended that two of the judges sitting on the three-judge panel examining his appeal, lacked impartiality as they had already adjudicated on his case. Lastly, he submits that the proceedings he was party to were unreasonably lengthy and that the domestic courts incorrectly assessed the evidence and misinterpreted the applicable legal provisions. Relying on Article 13 of the Convention, the applicant complained that he lacked an effective remedy for contesting the fine in that the domestic courts lacked impartiality, failed to address one of the appeal reasons raised by him and failed to examine the case within a reasonable time.
The applicant’s complaints under Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention concerning the failure of the domestic courts to address one of the appeal reasons raised by him, the impartiality of two judges that had already adjudicated on his case and the lack of an effective remedy 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 his own observations.
By letter dated 10 August 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant and his representative were notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 5 July 2012 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s and his 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. The applicant and his representative received this letter on 20 August 2012. However, no response has been received.
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.
Santiago QuesadaAlvina Gyulumyan
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy