CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 7 avril 2015

.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 } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s4DFDBCC7 { width:188.96pt; display:inline-block } .sAE540E25 { width:21.87pt; display:inline-block } .s7DB8BC41 { width:183.09pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 33072/10 Pashk SHALA against Austria The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 7   April   2015 as a Committee composed of:   Khanlar Hajiyev, President,   Erik Møse,   Dmitry Dedov, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 8 June 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Pashk Shala, is a Kosovar national, who was born in 1963 and lives in Gjakove. He was represented before the Court by his daughter Ms T. Krasniqi, who lives in Neudörfl. The Austrian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr H. Tichy, Head of the International Law Department at the Federal Ministry for Europe, Integration and Foreign Affairs. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. In November 1989 the applicant left the province of Kosovo and entered Austria. In 1991 he lodged his first asylum application, which was dismissed by the Upper Austria Security Authority ( Sicherheitsdirektion Oberösterreich ). At an unspecified date, the applicant was issued a residence permit by the Austrian authorities. On 24 June 2003 the Graz Regional Criminal Court ( Landesgericht für Strafsachen ) convicted the applicant of drug trafficking as a member of a criminal organisation and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment. At an unspecified date, the applicant’s residence permit was withdrawn because of the criminal conviction. On 12 July 2004 the Neunkirchen District Administrative Authority ( Bezirkshauptmannschaft ) issued a ten years’ exclusion order against the applicant. His appeal was dismissed on 31   August 2004 by the Lower Austria Security Authority ( Sicherheitsdirektion Niederösterreich ). The Administrative Court ( Verwaltungsgerichtshof ) dismissed a further appeal on 23 November 2004. Subsequently, the applicant requested the Austrian authorities that his expulsion to Serbia and Montenegro be declared inadmissible. On 22   November 2004 the Neunkirchen District Administrative Authority dismissed this request. His appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Lower Austria Security Authority on 29   December 2004. The Administrative Court dismissed his complaint against that decision on 31   March 2008. On 9 February 2005, while serving a prison sentence, the applicant lodged a second asylum application. The application was rejected by the Federal Asylum Office on 28   February 2005. On 8 March 2005 he lodged an appeal. On 16 January 2009 the Wiener Neustadt Regional Court ( Landesgericht ) convicted the applicant of aggravated threat and sentenced him to one month imprisonment, suspended on a probationary period of three years. On 22 September 2009 the Asylum Court ( Asylgerichtshof ) held an oral hearing concerning the applicant’s asylum claim of 2005. On 15 October 2009 the applicant was convicted of attempted robbery and sentenced to eighteen months’ imprisonment. On 27 October 2009 the Asylum Court dismissed the applicant’s asylum application and ordered his expulsion. On 27 April 2010 the Constitutional Court refused to deal with the applicant’s complaint due to lack of prospects of success. On 4 June 2010 the applicant was taken into detention pending deportation. On 22 June 2010 he was expelled to Kosovo. His wife and his five children as well as his brother, who are all Austrian citizens, remained in Austria. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 8 of the Convention that his expulsion violated his right to respect of his private and family life. THE LAW On 23 April 2014 the President of the First Section decided that notice of the application should be given to the respondent Government and that they should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. By letter dated 18 September 2014 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 29   October 2014. By letters dated 16 December 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant as well as his representative were notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 29 October 2014 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 January 2015 and the applicant on 8 January 2015. However, no response has been received. 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 30 April 2015. André Wampach   Khanlar Hajiyev   Deputy Registrar   President