CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 mai 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 } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s3E3166BC { width:200.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 23644/12 Darinka MINIĆ against Montenegro The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 16   May 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 April 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Darinka Minić, is a Montenegrin national, who was born in 1929 and lives in Kolašin. She was represented before the Court by Mr M. Stojanović, a lawyer practising in Berane. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Pavličić. The applicant’s complaint about a deprivation of her property without any compensation was communicated under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 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 together with any claims for just satisfaction by 9 January 2017. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 7 February 2017, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 9 January 2017 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. He was invited to submit any observations the applicant wished to make together with her claims for just satisfaction by 7 March 2017. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 17 February 2017. However, no response has been received to date. 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 15 June 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President