CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 mars 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB1B96619 { width:160.61pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 57282/09 T.T.S. against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 4   March   2014 as a committee composed of:   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President,   Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,   Ksenija Turković, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 October 2009, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, T.T.S., is an Australian and Macedonian national, who was born in 1961 and lives in Sydney, Australia. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr K. Bogdanov. The applicant’s complaints that her child born in 1981 in a State-run hospital had been falsely declared deceased and given up for adoption were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. By letters of 15 April and 14 August 2013, the Registry invited the applicant to designate a legal representative. The applicant did not reply. On 2 October 2013 the Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit her own observations in reply. The letter, sent by registered post, returned to the Court. By a registered letter dated 13 November 2013, the applicant was informed that the letter of 2 October 2013 had returned to the Court. Her 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 letter returned to the Court with a note that the applicant “had moved”. The Court notes that the applicant neither informed the Court of any change of her postal address nor did she indicate any provisional address at which communication with her could be effected. In this connection, it recalls that, pursuant to Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court, “applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application”. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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. André Wampach   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos Deputy Registrar   President