CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 29 septembre 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 } .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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sEAFBA80E { width:195.43pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 52013/10 Elena TURCU against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 29   September 2015 as a Committee composed of:   Johannes Silvis, President,   Iulia Antoanella Motoc,   Carlo Ranzoni, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 July 2010, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Elena Turcu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1960 and lives in Târgovişte. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Romanian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Relying on Articles 3, 5, 6, 8, 10 of the Convention and 4 of Protocol No.   7 to the Convention the applicant raised several complaints before the Court. The complaint under Article 8 concerning the footage and photographs taken by the press at the request and with the help of the investigating authorities of the applicant and her family in humiliating circumstances after a car accident 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 her own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 14 April 2015, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 24 March 2015 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’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 received this letter on 28 April 2015. 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 her 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 22 October 2015.   Marialena Tsirli   Johannes Silvis Deputy Registrar   President