CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 janvier 2011

.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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sD7DE76AD { width:201.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 11410/05 by Emil STOIAN against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   January   2011 as a Committee composed of:   Elisabet Fura, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Ineta Ziemele, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 March 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Emil Stoian, is a Romanian national who was born on   an unspecified date and lives in Cluj-Napoca. The Romanian   Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan ‑ Horaţiu Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In 1978, the Cluj   Military   County   Court sentenced the applicant, who   was a Jehovah’s Witness, to three years imprisonment for refusing, for religious reasons, to perform mandatory military service. In 2002, claiming that he had been politically persecuted by the communist regime, the applicant brought proceedings against the Cluj Labour and Social Agency under Law-Decree No.   118 of 1990, seeking to be awarded the benefits provided for politically persecuted people. In its final   decision of 16   September   2004, the Cluj   Court   of   Appeal dismissed the applicant’s action on the ground that the refusal to be recruited to the army was not   a   political crime in nature and that therefore the provisions of Law ‑ Decree   No. 118 of 1990 did not apply in his case. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that he did not have a fair hearing before the national courts in respect of the determination of his status as a politically persecuted person, following his   imprisonment during the time of the communist regime because of his   refusal to perform mandatory military service. He also alleged in substance a violation of Article   14 of the Convention taken together with Article   6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol   No.   1, claiming that the same courts had adopted opposite decisions in identical cases concerning Jehovah’s Witnesses. THE LAW On 31   May   2010 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaints detailed above. By letter dated 28 September 2010 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations in reply together with his claims for just satisfaction by 9 November 2010. By letter dated 3   December   2010 the applicant informed the Court that he wanted to withdraw the application as, by decision of 28   February   2008, he had obtained satisfaction at the national level. He also mentioned that, since 1 st   December   2008, he had been receiving payment of the pecuniary   rights claimed in his application before the Court. 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.   Marialena Tsirli   Elisabet Fura Deputy Registrar   President