[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Elena TATU v Romania - 1282/05 [2012] ECHR 545 (13 March 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/545.html Cite as: [2012] ECHR 545

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 1282/05
Elena TATU
against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 13 March 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Egbert Myjer, President,
Luis López Guerra,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 December 2004,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant, Ms Elena Tatu, is a Romanian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Alexandria, Teleorman County. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Ms Irina Cambrea, of the Ministry of Foreign Affaires.

The applicant complained mainly of ill-treatment by the police.

On 13 July 2010 the case was communicated to the respondent Government. Notice of the communication was sent to the applicant who was also requested to appoint counsel according to Rule 36 §§ 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court. She was advised to contact the local or national bar association should she encounter any difficulties in finding an advocate.

On 28 October 2010 the applicant requested legal aid. The Registry acknowledged receipt of the applicant’s letter and reiterated that the applicant had to appoint counsel and that the bar associations might be able to assist her.

On 30 November 2010 the applicant was granted legal aid and asked again to appoint counsel, before 22 December 2010. The time-limit was extended until 25 January 2011, upon the applicant’s request.

On 21 January 2011 the applicant informed the Court that she had not been able to find counsel either in Alexandria or in Bucharest, as all lawyers allegedly refused to take her case. She expressed her regret that her case might be struck out of the Court’s list of cases for that reason.

On 23 February 2011 the Court contacted the Teleorman Bar Association seeking their help in finding suitable counsel for the applicant. It informed the applicant of that letter and invited her again to appoint counsel. The Court’s letter to the Bar Association was left unanswered.

The applicant informed the Court that she had transmitted the power of representation form to the dean of the Teleorman Bar association asking him to appoint counsel. It appears that her letter addressed to the dean contained no further information about her case. Her request remained unanswered.

The applicant has still not designated counsel in the present proceedings.

THE LAW

The Court notes that in the present case, the applicant has not managed to find an appropriate advocate during a period of around one and a half year despite repeated reminders of the ongoing obligation to do so. Neither has she requested leave to represent herself in the proceedings. Even though she was granted legal aid and was aware that she incurred the risk of having her case struck out, the applicant failed to contact lawyers directly, but merely asked the dean of the local bar association to appoint counsel, without even giving details about her case.

The Court regrets the lack of response by the Teleorman Bar Association to its request to assist the applicant in finding a lawyer who would represent her in the present proceedings. Be that as it may, and given the circumstances, the Court cannot but conclude that the applicant remained bound to respect the procedure before the Court and take all necessary steps to discharge herself of the obligation to be duly represented by an advocate before the Court, or seek self-representation in the alternative. The Court, moreover, notes that the applicant has not provided any explanation for her conduct.

The Court reiterates that according to its practice, failure to comply with the requirement of proper legal representation may result in the discontinuation of the proceedings (see Grimaylo v. Ukraine (dec.), no. 69364/01, 7 February 2006; Ivanchenko v. Ukraine (dec.) no. 60726/00, 7 February 2006; Akulov v. Russia (dec.), no. 74688/01, 8 March 2007; and Klopcovs and Others v. Latvia (dec.), no. 14042/02, 9 February 2010). In the specific circumstances of the present case, the Court sees no reason to deviate from that practice.

For these reasons, the Court finds it established that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 (c) 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 Egbert Myjer
Deputy Registrar President