CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 31 mai 2010

.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 } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; 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 } .sACC481A8 { width:192.94pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 31396/09 by Jörn IPSEN against Germany The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 31 May 2010 as a Committee composed of:   Karel Jungwiert, President,   Renate Jaeger,   Mark Villiger, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: PROCEDURE The case originated in an application lodged by Mr Jörn Ipsen, a German national who was born in 1944 and lives in Bramsche. He was represented before the Court by Mr T. Koch, a lawyer practising in Hagen am Teuteburger Wald. On 25 February 2010 the Court decided to communicate the applicant's complaint concerning the length of administrative court proceedings concerning the applicant's duty as a university professor to surrender auxiliary earnings to his employer, a university. The proceedings at issue started on 15 September 1999, ended on 10 December 2008 and concerned four levels of jurisdiction. On 26 April 2010 counsel for the applicant informed the Court that he wished to withdraw the application. THE LAW The Court takes note of the wish expressed by counsel for the applicant to withdraw the application. It further finds no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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. Stephen Phillips   Karel Jungwiert Deputy Registrar   President