FOURTH SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 60971/12 Gentian KUKE against Albania

The European Court of Human Rights ( Fourth Section ), sitting on 15 September 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Nona Tsotsoria , President, Ledi Bianku , Paul Mahoney , judges, and Fatoş Aracı , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 September 2012 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Gentian Kuke , is an Albanian national, who was born in 1978. His last known address communicated to the Court was in Tirana .

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

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as well as Article 1 Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of a final court decision given in his favour .

On 8 September 2014 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant ’ s complaint.

On 19 September 2014 the Court sent a letter to the applicant informing him about the communication of the case to the Government.

On 12 January 2015 the Government informed the Court that they accepted the friendly settlement proposal made by the Registry.

On 4 February 2015 the applicant was invited to inform the Court whether he accepted the settlement in question.

On 18 June and 22 June 2015, the Registry ’ s letters of 19 September 2014 and 4 February 2015 were returned as undelivered. The letters were returned with a note “insufficient address/moved away” (“adresë e pamjaftueshme/larguar”).

The applicant has not to date resumed his correspondence with the Court.

THE LAW

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention as well as Article 1 Protocol No. 1 about the non-enforcement of a final court decision.

The Court reiterates that, Article 37 of the Convention, in its relevant part, provides as follows:

“1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that

(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or

(b) the matter has been resolved; or

(c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application ...”

Having regard to the events occurred after the notice of the application had been given to the respondent Government, the Court considers that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied.

The Court also recalls that, pursuant to Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court, “applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application”. In this respect the Court notes that the applicant has failed to respond to communications from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was sent on 4 February 20 15 . Nor has he informed the Court of his change of address.

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 discontinue the application of Article 2 8 § 1 (b) of the Convention and 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 8 October 2015 .

Fatoş Aracı Nona Tsotsoria Deputy Registrar President