THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3216/05
Traian Ștefăniță POPA
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 3 February 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Johannes Silvis,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 October 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Traian Ștefăniță Popa, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1972 and lives in Bucharest. He was represented before the Court by Mr V. Topârceanu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained mainly under Article 6 of the Convention about the alleged unfairness of the criminal proceedings against him. He also raised complaints under Articles 3, 5 and 14 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention.
The applicant’s complaint concerning entrapment, raised under Article 6 of the Convention, was communicated to the Government, and both parties submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. On 1 June 2010 the Court found that the criminal proceedings at stake breached the requirements of Article 6 of the Convention with respect to one of the co‑defenders (Bulfinsky v. Romania, no. 28823/04, 1 June 2010). As a consequence, all defendants, including the applicant, sought revision of the final decision rendered in their case by the domestic courts. On 24 January 2011 the final decision was quashed by the High Court of Cassation and Justice and the case was referred to the lower courts for re-examination on the merits.
On 14 August 2014 the Court requested to be kept abreast with the evolution of those new proceedings.
On 27 August 2014 the Government informed the Court that the domestic proceedings had ended, that the applicant had been convicted by the Bucharest County Court on 23 October 2012 and that the decision had been upheld by the Bucharest Court of Appeal on 7 May 2013. Furthermore, they contended that the applicant had failed to challenge those two decisions by means of an appeal on points of law. On 9 September 2014 the Government’s letter was sent to the applicant for information.
No reply was received from the applicant or his representative to the Registry’s letter of 14 August 2014. Nor did they react to the information provided by the Government on 27 August 2004.
By letter dated 16 October 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of observations on the recent developments in the domestic proceedings had expired 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. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 30 October 2014. 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.
Done in English and notified in writing on 26 February 2015.
Marialena TsirliLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy