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 } .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 } .sB02EDC95 { width:190.3pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 42545/05 by Evtimka Alexandrova PETROVA against Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 10   January 2012 as a Committee composed of:   David Thór Björgvinsson, President,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Vincent A. De Gaetano, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 11 November 2005, Having regard to the correspondence with the parties, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Ms Evtimka Alexandrova Petrova, a Bulgarian national, was born in 1947 and lived in Sofia. She was represented before the Court by Mrs N. Sedefova, a lawyer practising in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Dimova, of the Ministry of Justice. The applicant complained under Articles 8 and 13 as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the Convention that, in particular, her rental agreement with the State was terminated arbitrarily and that she would be evicted from the flat her family had been living in since 1947. The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government on 21   October 2010, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The Government also informed the Court that the applicant had died on 4 March 2008. On 23 March 2011 the Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative. On 3 May 2011 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that she had not been able to contact the applicant’s heirs or close relatives and requested extension. The request was granted. By letter dated 2 June 2011 the applicant’s representative notified the Court that she had contacted the husband and daughter of the applicant and had informed them about the stage of the proceedings and the Court’s request for observations and just satisfaction claims. She submitted that they did not authorise her to represent them before the Court and informed her that they would further consider whether or not to pursue the application before the Court. No communication from the applicant’s husband and daughter has been received by the Court. No other close relatives have come forward to pursue the application on the applicant’s behalf. THE LAW It has been the Court’s practice to strike applications out of the list of cases under Article 37 § 1 of the Convention in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue the application (see Léger v. France (striking out) [GC], no. 19324/02, § 44, ECHR 2009 ‑ ..., with further references). From the developments set out above it appears that the applicant died in the course of the proceedings. Despite having been informed about the communication of the applicant’s complaints, her husband and daughter have not expressed the wish to pursue the application on her behalf. No other heirs or close relatives have come forward with such a wish either. Furthermore, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights which require the continued examination of the case (contrast Karner v. Austria , no. 40016/98, §§ 24 ‑ 28, ECHR 2003 ‑ IX). In view of that, it is appropriate to strike the application out of the list of cases under Article 37 §   1 (c) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Fatoş Aracı   David Thór Björgvinsson Deputy Registrar   President