CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 janvier 2012

.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 } .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 } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sC9D6F765 { width:209.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 6087/05 Marin CONSTANTIN against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10   January   2012 as a Committee composed of:   Ján Šikuta, President,   Ineta Ziemele,   Kristina Pardalos, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 February 2005, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr   Marin Constantin, is a Romanian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Bucharest. He is represented before the Court by Mr   P. Drăghici, a lawyer practising in Drobeta Turnu Severin. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms   C. Ciută, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Relying on Article   5 of the Convention the applicant complained that the domestic court which ordered his detention pending trial failed to hear him as he could not attend the hearing on account of his medical condition. Invoking Article   6 of the Convention the applicant complained of a breach of his right to the presumption of innocence in so far as his pre ‑ trial detention was based exclusively on G.C.’s statement who could have benefited from it by being awarded a lower sentence and in so far as the initiation of the criminal investigation against him had been mentioned in his criminal record; and of the fact that he was arrested without being informed promptly of the charges brought against him. Relying on Article   7 of the Convention the applicant complained that he had been detained pending trial and indicted for acts that did not constitute a criminal offence under national law. Invoking Article   8 of the Convention the applicant complained of the surveillance of his telephone conversations by the Public Prosecutor’s Office without a court order as required by Articles   91 1 and 91 3 of the Romanian Code of Criminal Procedure. Relying both on Articles   8 of the Convention and 1   of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention the applicant complained of the confiscation of his daughter’s car by the domestic authorities in order to allegedly force him to confess the offences he had committed. The applicant’s complaints under Articles   5 and 8 of the Convention concerning the failure of the domestic court to hear him on account of his medical condition prior to ordering his detention pending trial and the surveillance of his telephone conversations by the Public Prosecutor’s Office without a court order were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit observations on the applicant’s behalf. No reply was received to the Court’s letter. By a letter dated 25   May   2011, sent by registered post, and copied to the applicant, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of observations on the applicant’s behalf had expired on 3   May   2011 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’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 applicant’s representative received this letter on 2   June   2011. However, no response has been received. 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.   Marialena Tsirli   Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar   President