THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no . 38289/07 Ovidiu Vasile PARFENI against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights ( Third Section ), sitting on 27 May 2014 as a Committee composed of:

Alvina Gyulumyan , President, Kristina Pardalos , Johannes Silvis, judges , and Marialena Tsirli , Deputy Section Registrar ,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 August 2007 ,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Mr Ovidiu Vasile Parfeni , is a Romanian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Bârlad .

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

The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair hearing had been infringed.

The applicant ’ s complaint was 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. No reply was received to the Registry ’ s letter.

By letter dated 15 November 2013 , sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 9 October 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant ’ s a ttention 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 int end to pursue the application. The applicant received this letter on 6 December 2013 . However, no response has been received.

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 r easons, the Court unanimously

Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.

Marialena Tsirli Alvina Gyulumyan              Deputy Registrar President