THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33964/10
Laszlo SZTOJKA
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 18 February 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan, President,
Kristina Pardalos,
Johannes Silvis, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 May 2010,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Laszlo Sztojka, is a Hungarian national, who was born in 1980 and lives in Budapest.
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant’s complaint concerning the fact that his conversations with his cell mate were intercepted and used as evidence which led to his conviction was 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. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 1 October 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 19 September 2013 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 9 October 2013. 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.
Marialena TsirliAlvina Gyulumyan
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy