CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 mars 2012

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s260B30F2 { width:16.02pt; display:inline-block } .sF03B00FD { width:194.96pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s619FCD1 { font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s13783063 { width:6.24pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD3E80896 { width:27.9pt; display:inline-block } .s833FBB08 { width:11.29pt; display:inline-block } .sA5F235A1 { width:6.65pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 33425/03 Alina Diana NICOARĂ against Romania and 2 other applications (see list appended) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 27   March 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Ján Šikuta, President,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on 25 September 2003, 13 June 2006 and 4 April 2007 respectively, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, Mrs Alina Diana Nicoară, Mr Tănase Constantinescu and Mr Simion Potcoavă are Romanian nationals who reside in Bucharest and Târgu-Mureş respectively. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicants in applications nos. 33425/03 and 17301/07 complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the alleged infringement of their effective access to court due to the amount of court fees imposed. The applicant in application no. 26332/06 complained about the length of criminal proceedings against him. The applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits or declarations for friendly settlement. The observations and the friendly settlement declarations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations or present their position on the conditions of the friendly settlement. No replies were received to the Registry’s letters. By letters dated 9 December 2011, 8 February 2011 and 3   November   2011 respectively, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the periods allowed for submission of their replies had expired on 29   September 2011, 10 January 2011 and 2 September 2011 respectively and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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. However, no responses have been received. THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to join them. The Court considers that, in the above circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases. In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.   Marialena Tsirli   Ján Šikuta   Deputy Registrar   President List of applications       33425/03   Nicoară v. Romania 2.   26332/06   Tănase Constantinescu v. Romania 3.   17301/07   Potcoavă v. Romania