CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 9 octobre 2007

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s3B3A5DE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s9BB96641 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:24pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE0A7027A { margin-top:24pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 68145/01 by Petar Hristov DESHEV against Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 9   October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger ,   Mr   M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 December 2000, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. Having regard to the partial decision of 3 July 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Petar Deshev, is a Bulgarian national who was born in 1957 and lives in Pleven. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows. The applicant is a medical doctor. In 1982 he became army service officer. For a number of years he worked as a military medical doctor. On 1 March 2000, the Central Military Medical Commission (“CMMC”) certified, after an examination, that the applicant was not fit for military service on health grounds. On 21 March 2000 he was dismissed from the army by order of the Minister of Defence. The applicant appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court. He sought unsuccessfully to adduce medical and other evidence. On 20 June 2000 the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal. It noted that the impugned dismissal had been based on a certification by the CMMC that the applicant was not fit for military service. The dismissal order had been issued in compliance with the relevant procedure and its substance was in conformity with the aims embodied in the relevant law. In so far as the applicant had challenged the conclusions of the CMMC, its members’ competence and their methods, those issues were irrelevant. The CMMC’s certification was final, not amenable to appeal and binding for the Supreme Administrative Court. The applicant appealed. On an unspecified date in 2000, a five-member chamber of the Supreme Administrative Court rejected the appeal. That decision was final. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings concerning his dismissal, which ended by final judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court of 2000, had been unfair. He submitted, inter alia , that the courts had refused to admit medical and other evidence about his health and had not accepted to deal with the soundness of the CMMC’s conclusions. THE LAW By letters of 26 July and 1 August 2007 the applicant stated that he withdrew his complaints and asked the Court to terminate the proceedings. Having regard to the above circumstances, the Court finds that the applicant has lost interest in pursuing his application. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention. By reference to Article 37 §§   1(a), the Court considers that the case should be struck out of its list of cases. It finds no particular reasons concerning respect for human rights, as defined in the Convention and its Protocols, which would require further examination of the present application (Article 37 § 1 in fine ). For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President