THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33993/10
Elena Valentina ŞIŞCANU
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:
Ján Šikuta, President,
Ineta Ziemele,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 May 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Elena Valentina Şişcanu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1974 and lives in Mirandol. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
Relying in substance on Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention the applicant complained that for more than a year she had been unable to enforce a final judgment acknowledging her right to visit and to host her two underage children at her home over certain periods of the year. Moreover, in spite of her repeated efforts to enforce the said judgment she continued to be unable to visit and maintain personal ties with her children, particularly because of the passive attitude of the domestic authorities, the length of the enforcement proceedings and the obstructive attitude of her children’s father. Lastly, she complained of the length and the unfairness of the divorce and custody proceedings and claimed that the domestic courts had wrongfully assessed the evidence and lacked impartiality.
The applicant’s complaint under Articles 6 § 1 and 8 of the Convention concerning her inability to enforce the final judgment acknowledging her right to visit and to host her two underage children at her home was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits on 6 May 2011. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit her own observations by 15 September 2011. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By a letter dated 25 October 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 15 September 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 29 October 2011. 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 TsirliJán Šikuta
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy