CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 juin 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 } .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 } .s791AF0C { width:203.98pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 32768/08 Nazim ISMAYILOV against Azerbaijan The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 17 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Erik Møse, President,   Khanlar Hajiyev,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 June 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Nazim Ismayilov, is an Azerbaijani national, who was born in 1966 and lives in Baku. He was represented before the Court by Mr   K. Agayev (appointed originally) and Mr A. Shahverdi (appointed as a second representative later), lawyers practising in Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijani Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Ç. Asgarov. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the lack of a fair trial in the civil proceedings where he was a defendant and an unjustified interference with his ownership of commercial property. The applicant’s complaints 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. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By a letter dated 30 May 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant’s first representative, Mr K. Agayev, was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 3 April 2013 and that no extension of time had been requested. The 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 13 June 2013. However, no response has been received. As it was not clear whether Mr K. Agayev was still in contact with the applicant, on 25 July 2013 the Registry sent a letter with the same content to the applicant himself. The letter did not reach the applicant, as he was not found at the postal address that he had indicated to the Court. On 11 September 2013 a letter with the same content was sent to the applicant’s second representative, Mr A. Shahverdi. No reply was received. During a telephone inquiry made by the Registry on 28 February 2014, Mr A. Shahverdi informed the Registry that he had not received any correspondence from the Court. By a letter dated 3 March 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant’s second representative, Mr A. Shahverdi, was given a new deadline for submission of observations. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 14 March 2014. 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. André Wampach   Erik Møse Deputy Registrar   President