CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 décembre 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 } .s944BDE53 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .sDB6B63EE { width:176.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 34692/05 by Orlin Angelov SABINOV against Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8   December 2009 as a Chamber composed of: Peer Lorenzen, President,   Renate Jaeger,   Karel Jungwiert,   Rait Maruste,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 August 2005, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE PROCEDURE The application was lodged by Mr Orlin Angelov Sabinov, a Bulgarian national who was born in 1959 and lives in Lovech. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agents, Ms   N.   Nikolova and Ms S. Atanasova, of the Ministry of Justice. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention concerning the length of the criminal proceedings against him was communicated to the Government on 27 March 2009. At the same time the Court initiated a friendly settlement procedure and invited the applicant to state whether he accepts the proposed terms. The letter was sent to the correspondence address designated by the applicant, but no response was received. On 8 September 2009 the Government informed the Court that they accept the friendly settlement proposal and requested an extension of the deadline to submit a signed declaration to that effect. The applicant was informed of this fact by letter dated 14 September 2009, sent by registered post to the applicant’s permanent address and to the designated correspondence address. 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. The letter sent to the applicant’s permanent address was returned on 21   September 2009 as “unclaimed” while the letter sent to the designated correspondence address was returned on 15 October 2009 as “the recipient had moved to a new address”. No further correspondence has been received from the applicant while his last communication to the Court dates back to 28 March 2006. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits on 14 October 2009. 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. Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President