THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 49022/09 Joaquín RUIZ-GIMÉNEZ AGUILAR against Spain

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 31 March 2015 as a Committee composed of:

Johannes Silvis , President, Luis López Guerra , Valeriu Griţco , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 4 September 2009 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

The applicant, Mr Joaquín Ruiz- Giménez Aguilar , is a Spanish national, who was born in 1942 and lives in Madrid .

The Spanish Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, M r. F.A. Sanz Gandasegui , State Attorney .

The applicant is a lawyer who was disciplinarily fined for the submission before a judge of a brief in which he had included allegedly contemptuous statements against the judge. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that he had not enjoyed a hearing by an impartial tribunal, since the judge dealing with the disciplinary proceedings was the same judge against whom he had directed the statements for which he was found guilty of serious misconduct. The applicant also complained under Article 10 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts had violated his right to freedom of expression by unfairly imposing a fine on him on account of statements made in the defence of his client ’ s interests and therefore in the exercise of his responsibilities and duties as legal counsel .

The applicant ’ s complaints 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 together with any claims for just satisfaction .

On 5 March 2013 the applicant submitted his observations in Spanish.

By a letter of 21 March 2013 the applicant was invited to submit, in accordance with Rule 34 § 3 (a) of the Rules of the Court, a translation of his observations in one of the Court ’ s official languages before 18 April 2013.

By two letters of 24 and 30 April 2013 the Court reminded the applicant of his obligation under Rule 34 § 3 (a) to send a translation of his observations in one of the Court ’ s official languages.

In view of the lack of response, by a letter dated 4 June 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was invited, again, to submit a translation of his observations on the admissibility and merits of the application bef ore 2 July 2013.

By a letter of 26 June 2013 the applicant stated that he could not provide the Court with a translation into English or French of his observations. He did not give any reasons for this failure to comply with the Rules of the Court.

By a su bsequent letter of 16 July 2013 the Court reminded the applicant of his obligation under Rule 34 § 3 (a) and invited him to alternatively make a formal and justified request to use the Spanish language in the proceedings before the Court by 25 July 2013. No response followed.

By a letter dated 10 October 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant was invited, again, to submit the translation of his observations or, alternatively, to make a formal and justified request to make his submissions in Spanish be fore 9 November 2013. His 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 case where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application.

By a letter of 5 November 2013 the applicant sought leave for using Spanish in the proceedings before the Court without giving any reasons other than he was “not in a position to provide the Court with a translation into French or English of the entire proceedings” .

By a letter dated 21 November 2013 , sent by registered post, the applicant was informed that the President of the Section had decided, in the circumstances of the case, not to grant him the requested leave . Consequently, he was once again invited to submit a translation of his observations on the admissibility and merits before 19 December 2013. By this same letter the applicant was also informed that failure to comply with this requirement could lead to the conclusion that he was no longer interested in pursuing the application and, subsequently, the Court could decide to strike the case out of its list of cases.

No response followed .

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. Furtherm ore, 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 April 2015 .

Marialena Tsirli Johannes Silvis Deputy Registrar President