SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 11955/07
UNIUNEA INVENTATORILOR SI RATIONALIZATORILOR ‘INOVATORUL’ and UNIUNEA SOCIETATILOR TEHNICO-STIINTIFICE
against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 September 2016 as a Committee composed of:
Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,
Valeriu Griţco,
Georges Ravarani, judges,
and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 February 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicants, Uniunea Inventatorilor și Raționalizatorilor ‘Inovatorul’ and Uniunea Societăților Tehnico-Științifice din Moldova, are two public associations registered in Moldova and seated in Chișinău. They were represented before the Court by Mr Gh. Avornic, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.
The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The applicant associations complained under Article 6 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the unlawful quashing of a final judgment in their favour.
The applicant associations’ complaints were communicated to the Government on 29 March 2010, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant associations, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 24 August 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant associations’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 21 September 2010 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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 applicants’ representative received this letter on 6 September 2011. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant associations may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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 20 October 2016.
Hasan BakırcıStéphanie Mourou-Vikström
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy