THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35161/04
Maricica SMEU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 May 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 September 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Maricica Smeu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1949 and lives in Măgura.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Irina Cambrea, of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 2 and 8 of the Convention about a violation of her rights on account of the publication of a defamatory article about her and the impossibility of obtaining compensation for the alleged damage.
On 8 December 2011 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints detailed above.
On 18 January 2012 the applicant sought legal aid from the Court. On 2 February 2012 the Registry sent a letter to the applicant requesting information concerning her financial situation and advising her that if she were to be granted legal aid, the fees paid under the Court’s legal aid scheme would not normally cover the full legal costs of her representation.
On 23 February 2012, upon receiving the above letter, the applicant informed the Court that she wanted to withdraw the application since her financial situation did not allow her to contribute to the costs of legal representation. She did not send the financial justifications required under the legal aid procedure.
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