FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 22263/05
by TPK MEBEL
against Bulgaria
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8 December 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 June 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The applicant, TPK Mebel, is a Bulgarian cooperative organisation with its seat in Plovdiv.
It complained that the length of a set of civil proceedings it had been party to had been excessive (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention) and that, pursuant to the judgment given in those proceedings, it had lost certain property (Article 1 of Protocol No. 1).
On 24 March 2009 the Court sent a letter to the applicant organisation informing it that notice of the application had been given to the Government of Bulgaria and inviting it to indicate whether it would accept a friendly settlement of the case.
As the applicant organisation failed to respond to the friendly settlement proposal, by letter of 21 July 2009, sent by registered mail, it was invited to indicate, by 31 August 2009, whether it maintained the application. It was advised that if it failed to reply within the time-limit the Court might conclude that it did not intend to pursue the application and strike the case out of its list of cases, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
The applicant organisation’s representative received the Court’s letter on 7 August 2009. However, no reply to that letter has been received.
The latest communication from the applicant organisation dates back to October 2005.
THE LAW
The Court considers that in these circumstances the applicant organisation may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the present 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.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy