PRODANOF v. ROMANIA
Doc ref: 55517/10 • ECHR ID: 001-148083
Document date: October 7, 2014
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no . 55517/10 Nicolae PRODANOF against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 7 October 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Alvina Gyulumyan , President, Johannes Silvis , Valeriu Griţco , judges, and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 August 2010 ,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Nicolae Prodanof , is a Romanian and Brazilian national, who was born in 1942 and lives in São Paulo. He was represented before the Court by Ms T. Dan , a lawyer practising in Bucharest .
The Romanian Government (“the Government”) wer e represented by their Agent, M s C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the civil proceedings in which he had been involved .
Thi s complaint was communicated to the Government, who expressed their intention to settle the case and submitted a declaration to that effect. The applicant ’ s representative was invited to submit his position concerning the friendly settlement of the case before 26 May 2014, but failed to do so. Moreover, he failed to respond to the registered letter dated 1 July 2014 drawing his attention 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 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.
Marialena Tsirli Alvina Gyulumyan Deputy Registrar President
LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
