CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 24 novembre 2009

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s635176F2 { width:141.94pt; display:inline-block } .s6FDB9D1F { width:194.97pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 45069/05 by Zoltán DOBOS against Hungary   The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 24   November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Françoise Tulkens, President,   Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,   Danutė Jočienė,   Dragoljub Popović,   András Sajó,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and, Françoise Elens-Passos Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 October 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The application was lodged by Mr Zoltán Dobos, a Hungarian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Mezőtúr. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement. The applicant’s complaint under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, was communicated to the Government, who submitted observations on admissibility and merits. These observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to reply but did not. By letter dated 29 September 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 15 September 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’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. This letter, stamped “ déménagé ”, was returned by the post office of the applicant’s domicile on 7 October 2009. In all, no communication from the applicant has reached the Court since 20   January 2006. 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. Françoise Elens-Passos   Françoise Tulkens    Deputy Registrar   President