THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Applications nos. 41654/08 and 61428/08
Serafim URECHEAN against the Republic of Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 1 July 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Valeriu Griţco, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 1 July 2008 and 12 November 2008 respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant in the first and second case, Mr Serafim Urechean, is a Moldovan national, who was born in 1950 and lives in Chişinău. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Graur, a lawyer practising in Chișinău.
The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about being denied access to court.
The applications were 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 24 January 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 20 September 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s 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 applicant’s representative received this letter on 7 February 2014. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court finds that, given their common factual and legal background, it is appropriate to join the present applications.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his applications, 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 cases.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
Decides to join the applications,
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Marialena TsirliDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy