CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 janvier 2017

.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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5830ECD9 { width:0.2pt; display:inline-block } .sB57ABB22 { width:160.72pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 42967/04 Gheorghe ROZSA against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24   January 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque, President,   Iulia Motoc,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 24 November 2004, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Mr Gheorghe Rozsa, was a Hungarian national, who was born in 1922 and lived in Budapest. 2.     The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms C. Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 3.     On 20 December 2006 the Court was informed that Mr   Gheorghe   Rozsa had died on 17 December 2005 and that Mr   Gabor   Rozsa and Mr Mihaly Rozsa, his sons and heirs, wanted to pursue the proceedings in his stead. For practical reasons, Mr Gheorghe Rozsa will continue to be called “the applicant” in this decision, although his two heirs are now to be regarded as such (see Dalban v. Romania [GC], no.   28114/95, §   1, ECHR 1999 ‑ VI). 4.     The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 of the Convention and Article   1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. These observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations by 6 March 2012. On 2   March   2012 the applicant informed the Court that two sets of civil proceedings, capable in his view, to offer him redress in respect of the complaints raised in the present application, were pending at a national level. On 30 June 2012 the applicant asked that the procedure before the Court be suspended pending the resolution of the case before the domestic authorities. On 2   October   2012 the applicant informed the Court that he had obtained a final judgment in his favour in one of the set of proceedings mentioned above, while the other proceedings were still pending; the request to suspend the procedure before the Court was reiterated. 5.     By letter dated 10 March 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant was asked whether the second set of proceedings mentioned in his latest letter were still pending before the domestic authorities. He was invited to submit his reply by 7 April 2016 at the latest. 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 24 March 2016. However, no response has been received. THE LAW 6.     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 16 February 2017.   Andrea Tamietti   Paulo Pinto de Albuquerque Deputy Registrar   President