CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 octobre 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 } .sC9D6F765 { width:209.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 29716/06 FEDERALCOOP SATU MARE against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 7   October 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Ján Šikuta, President,   Dragoljub Popović,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 July 2006, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Federalcoop Satu Mare, is a Romanian company, located in Satu Mare. It was represented before the Court by Mr O.L. Podaru, a lawyer practising in Cluj Napoca. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. On 21 October 2011 the Court gave notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the alleged failure of the State to enforce a final judgment rendered in its favour. By a letter dated 16 April 2012, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any claims for just satisfaction by 29 May 2012. The applicant did not reply. By a letter dated 25 October 2012, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the just satisfaction claims had expired 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 his application. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 5   November 2012. However, no response has been received. THE LAW In the light of the above circumstances, the Court considers that the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue its 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   Ján Šikuta Deputy Registrar   President