THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 36250/09 Grațian LUPU against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 30 June 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Ján Šikuta , President, Iulia Antoanella Motoc , Branko Lubarda , judges,

and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 June 2009 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Grațian Lupu , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1981 and lives in France .

The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, M r s C. Brumar , of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs .

The applicant complained under Article 3 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention about his ill-treatment by a police officer and the lack of a subsequent effective investigation as well as the fact that the above-mentioned breaches of his rights were due to his Roma ethnic origin .

On 16 September 2014 t he applica tion was communicated to the Government . The applicant was invited to designate a representative in the proceedings before the Court as provided by Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court, no later than 4 December 2014. In a letter mailed on 4 December 2014 and received by the Court on 12 December 2014 the applicant informed the Court that he did not have the financial means to hire a lawyer.

By letter dated 18 December 2014 the applicant was notified that he had to be represented for the purposes of the proceedings following notification of the application to the respondent Government, unless the President of the Section concerned decided otherwise. The applicant was also informed that he might request legal aid if he lacked the financial means to pay for adequate representation. Accordingly, he was given a new deadline to designate a representative by 15 January 2015 and was also given the address and telephone number of the Timi ş Bar Association, the nearest one from his place of residence as mentioned in the application form. A copy of an authority form had been enclosed in the Court ’ s correspondence. By letter dated 26 January 2015 and received by the Court on 4 February 2015 the applicant informed the Court that he did not have the means to hire a lawyer and could not represent himself before the Court. The applicant, who did not request legal aid, further mentioned that he would like to be represented by his grandfather, C.B. (the local Roma leader) and that the correspondence in connection with the current application should be sent to his grandfather ’ s address. No authority form had been enclosed to this letter.

By letter dated 23 February 2015, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for designation of a representative who fulfilled the requirements set forth in paragraph 4 (a) of Rule 36 of the Rules of Court had expired on 15 January 2015 and that no extension of time had been requested . The applicant was further informed that the Court had again extended this period of its own motion until 23 March 2015 while hi 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 was also warned that the Government ’ s observations on the admissibility and merits of the case had been received and that a copy would be sent to him once the question of his representation in the proceedings before the Court would be clarified. The applicant received this letter on 2 March 2015 . However, no response has been received from the applicant .

THE LAW

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 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 23 July 2015 .

Marialena Tsirli Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar President