CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 14 juin 2016

.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 } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .sA5B1D89 { width:165.75pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 49597/13 Andrei SPÎNU against the Republic of Moldova The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 14   June 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, President,   Valeriu Griţco,   Georges Ravarani, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 July 2013, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Andrei Spînu, is a Moldovan national, who lives in Cobusca Nouă. He was represented before the Court by Mr I. Malanciuc, a lawyer practising in Chișinău. The Moldovan Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Apostol. The applicant complained under Articles 3 and 13 of the Convention about the inefficiency of the investigation into the injuries inflicted by a private party and the lack of effective remedies in respect of that complaint. The applicant’s complaints 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 his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 9 November 2015, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 21 July 2015 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 26 November 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 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 7 July 2016.   Hasan Bakırcı   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström Deputy Registrar   President