CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 18 mars 2014

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s7ED9CCD5 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:36pt; text-align:left } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sBF0FE613 { width:36pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s66CC5A41 { width:26.02pt; display:inline-block } .s3039CAC5 { width:196.62pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 30356/06 Paul ROBINSON against the United Kingdom The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 18   March 2014 as a Chamber composed of Ineta Ziemele, President,   George Nicolaou,   Ledi Bianku,   Nona Tsotsoria,   Zdravka Kalaydjieva,   Paul Mahoney,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 July 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Paul Robinson, is a British national who was born in 1966 and lives in Birmingham. He was represented before the Court by Mr O. Daneshyar of M & N Solicitors, a lawyer practising in Birmingham. 2.     The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr J. Grainger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the non-attendance of a witness at his criminal trial. 4.     On 5 June 2006 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaint. 5.     On 26 August 2008 the case was adjourned pending the adoption of the judgment in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v. the United Kingdom [GC], nos.   26766/05 and 22228/06, ECHR 2011. Following the adoption of that judgment, additional questions were communicated to the parties. 6.     On 12 February 2013 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded on 15 February 2013 to the applicant, who was invited to submit observations in reply by 2 April 2013. The deadline was extended to 31   July   2013 and the applicant’s observations were received on 22   July   2013. 7.     On 25 October 2013 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that they had lost contact with the applicant and that the Court should strike the application from its list. 8.     On 4 December 2013 the Registry wrote to the applicant by registered post, enclosing a copy of his representative’s letter. He was asked to inform the Court by 18 December 2013 if he wished to continue with his application, and he was warned that failure to reply might lead the Court to conclude that he was no longer interested in pursuing his application and to strike it out of its list of cases. No reply has been received. THE LAW 9.     In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Fatoş Aracı   Ineta Ziemele   Deputy Registrar   President