CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 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 } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .s47BA2785 { width:188.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 31259/06 Sorin Cleonic POPA against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24   June   2014 as a Committee composed of:   Alvina Gyulumyan, President,   Johannes Silvis,   Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 June 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Sorin Cleonic Popa, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Sibiu. He was represented before the Court by Ms   M.   Dumitru, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their   Agent, Mrs C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant complained under Article 6   § 1 of the Convention that his right to a fair hearing had been infringed on account of the fact that his conviction had been mainly based on unlawfully obtained recordings of his telephone conversations. Under the same article of the Convention he complained about the alleged lack of impartiality of the prosecutors and judges who had investigated and examined his case. Under Article   5 of the Convention he complained about his alleged unlawful arrest. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of 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. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 20 September 2013, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 13   August   2013 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 5   October   2013. 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.   Marialena Tsirli   Alvina Gyulumyan Deputy Registrar   President