THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 41075/08
Maria POENARU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16 October 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Egbert Myjer, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 August 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Ms Maria Poenaru, is a Romanian national, who lives in Craiova.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Irina Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the non-enforcement of the final judgment delivered in her favour.
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 claims for just satisfaction under Article 41 of the Convention. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 9 March 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her claims for just satisfaction had expired on 10 March 2011 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 19 March 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 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.
Marialena TsirliEgbert Myjer
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy