BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Petru CHIFORIUC v Moldova - 41744/02 [2010] ECHR 213 (2 February 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/213.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 213 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
41744/02
by Petru CHIFORIUC
against Moldova
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 2 February 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Lech
Garlicki,
Giovanni Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ledi
Bianku,
Mihai Poalelungi, judges,
and Lawrence
Early, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 November 2002,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Petru Chiforiuc, a Moldovan national who was born in 1938 and lives in Chişinău. He is represented before the Court by Mr V. Constantinov, a lawyer practising in Chişinău and member of Lawyers for Human Rights Organisation. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V. Grosu.
The applicant’s complaint concerning the fairness of civil proceedings 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 registered letter dated 12 October 2009 the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 30 September 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’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. 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. 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.
Lawrence Early Nicolas Bratza
Registrar President