CEDHCASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG29
CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 10 mai 2016
- ECLI
- ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0510DEC000537208
- Date
- 10 mai 2016
- Publication
- 10 mai 2016
droits fondamentauxCEDH
Source : DILA / Judilibre · open data
Mes notes
privées · visibles par vous seulRésumé structuré
version préliminaireFaits
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Procédure
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Question juridique
Non déterminable à partir du texte fourni.
Solution
source officielleStruck out of the list
Résumé généré automatiquement — à vérifier avec la décision originale.
Analyse IA non disponible
Générez un résumé intelligent de cette décision
Texte intégral
.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .sBF964C40 { width:8.54pt; display:inline-block } .s4936F720 { width:196.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 5372/08 BULAVTOTRANS EOOD against Bulgaria The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10   May 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Ganna Yudkivska, President,   André Potocki,   Síofra O’Leary, judges, and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 January 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant company, Bulavtotrans EOOD, is a Bulgarian limited liability company with its seat in Sofia. The Bulgarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms D. Dramova, from the Ministry of Justice. The applicant company complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that in civil proceedings brought against it the national courts had failed to respond to an argument raised by it, and had as a result given judgments depriving it of its property. On 27 March 2015 the application was communicated to the Government. On 10 August 2015 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The observations were forwarded to the applicant company, which was invited to submit its own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 2 December 2015, and by another one dated 27   January 2016 and sent by registered post, the applicant company was notified that the period allowed for submission of its observations had expired, and that no extension of time had been requested. It was invited to state whether it wished to maintain the application. Its 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 company received the Court’s letter of 27 January 2016 on 8   February 2016. However, no response has been received. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant company 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 2 June 2016.   Milan Blaško   Ganna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar   President  Citations
Aucune citation répertoriée pour cette décision.
Décisions connexes
Aucune décision similaire identifiée pour le moment.
Synthèse
- Juridiction
- CEDH
- Chambre
- CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG
- Formation
- 29
- Date
- 10 mai 2016
- Matière
- droits fondamentaux
Référence
ECLI:CE:ECHR:2016:0510DEC000537208
Données disponibles
- Texte intégral