FIRST SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 63542/14 Hysen BEGA and Arjeta BEGA against Albania

The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 30 August 2016 as a Committee composed of:

Kristina Pardalos, President, Paul Mahoney, Robert Spano, judges,

and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 9 July 2014,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicants, Mr Hysen Bega and Ms Arjeta Bega, are nationals, who were born in 1958 and 1954, respectively, and live in Tirana. They were represented before the Court by Mr D. Çeliku, a lawyer practising in Tirana.

The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Hicka of the State Advocate ’ s Office.

The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about their inability to question an expert. They further complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the excessive amount of compensation they were ordered to pay, which sum was not calculated on the basis of the Government ’ s property valuation map or, alternatively, of the sale price of the plot of land.

The applicants ’ complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants ’ representative, who was invited to submit their observations. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

By letter dated 27 November 2015, sent by registered post, the applicants ’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 27 August 2015 and that no extension of that time-limit 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 Registry ’ s letter was delivered on 2 December 2015 and the postal receipt was signed by the applicants ’ representative. However, no reply has been received.

THE LAW

The Court considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, as a result of the absence of any response, the applicants 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 (see Bendžius v. Lithuania (striking out), no. 67506/01, §§ 11 and 12 , 28 March 2006).

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 22 September 2016 .

             Renata Degener Kristina Pardalos              Deputy Registrar President