CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 septembre 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 } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s6667B4BF { width:213.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 34856/06 Wojciech Leon MLODZIEJEWSKI against Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4   September 2012 as a Committee composed of:   Päivi Hirvelä, President,   Ledi Bianku,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 August 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Wojciech Leon Mlodziejewski, is a Polish national, who was born on 8 February 1956 and lives in Belgrade. He is represented before the Court by Mr D.V. Dimov, a lawyer practising in Sofia. 2.     The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms N. Nikolova, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the proportionality of import duties and taxes imposed on him by the Bulgarian authorities after his car had been stolen in Bulgaria and he had failed to re-export it from its territory. He further complained under Article 6 § 1 that the tax proceedings had been unfair, under Article   14 that he had been discriminated against in that a more favourable tax regime had been subsequently introduced, and under Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 to the Convention that the taxes imposed on him restricted his right to freedom of movement within the territory of Bulgaria. 4.     No correspondence has been received from the applicant since the introduction of his application on 19 August 2006. 5.     On 25 May 2010 the applicant’s complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations by 22 December 2010. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. 6.     By letter dated 18 April 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired 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 12 May 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.   Fatoş Aracı   Päivi Hirvelä Deputy Registrar   President