The President granted the applicant’s request for his identity not to be disclosed to the public (Rule 47 § 4). 2.

    The Court notes the applicant’s stated intention not to pursue his applications.

firm intention not to change their minds.

He argued that his acquittal in the criminal proceedings was proof that the omission had not been intentional.

COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 about non-enforcement of the judgment of 6 March 2002.

ITL (13,000,000   ITL for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and 3,000,000 ITL for legal costs) to Mr Domenico PARENTE on the condition that I withdraw application No.

Ercolani case delivered on 25 November 2003 and transmitted the same day to the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 of the Convention;   Recalling that the case originated in an application (No

Russia (no. 2700/10, ECHR 2011) was considered to be. On 18   January 2013 the District Court acceded to his request. 7.

The summons sent to the applicant’s address known to the authorities could not be served on him personally as he was not at home.

By adopting Article 1 of Protocol No. 7 the States had clearly intimated their intention not to include such proceedings within the scope of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

The Court reiterates that – as the wording of Article 37 § 1 indeed indicates   – an applicant’s intention not to uphold his or her application with the Court may not only be assumed if he or she

In doing so, the domestic court had relied on particularly subjective considerations, potentially ascribing to the applicant intentions he had not in fact had.

The Court recalls that – as the wording of Article 37 § 1 indeed indicates   – an applicant's intention not to uphold his or her application with the Court may not only be assumed if he or she expressly

The applicant’s wish to withdraw the application is consistent with his clearly expressed intention not to ask the Czech authorities for international protection.

The Court does not consider that the applicant has unequivocally indicated any intention not to pursue his application. It must therefore continue its examination of the case (see Scutari v.

The Court does not consider that the applicant has unequivocally indicated any intention not to pursue his application. It must therefore continue its examination of the case. 20.

    The Court takes note of the applicant’s intention to withdraw his application. 11.

By a letter of 27 April 2005, the applicant confirmed his intention not to pursue his application before the Court and asked to discontinue the proceedings.

The judgment was not challenged and after fifteen days it became final and enforceable.