CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 décembre 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 } .sE90F10EF { width:187.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 28514/07 Florin FRĂŢILĂ against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16   December 2014 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Johannes Silvis,   Valeriu Griţco, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 May 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Florin Frăţilă, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1967 and lives in Bucharest. 2.     The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention about the revocation of his rights conferred by the registration of a trademark by a final decision of the High Court of Cassation and Justice. 4.     The applicant’s complaint concerning the alleged infringement of his right to peaceful enjoyment of his possessions was 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 by 7 April 2014. 5.     On 4 May 2014 the applicant requested an extension until 26   June   2014 of the time allowed for the submission of his observations. On 26 June and 5 August 2014 respectively, the applicant requested new extensions of the time for submission of his observations. He contended that he had sent the observations to a wrong address in Strasbourg and then that he had some difficulties in re-sending them. 6.     The Court exceptionally agreed to grant the requested extensions and set as a last time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations the date of 28 August 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.   Marialena Tsirli   Luis López Guerra Deputy Registrar   President