CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 15 juin 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 } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s354F7CEB { width:27.79pt; display:inline-block } .s501BE8A7 { width:150.66pt; display:inline-block } .sC30055DD { width:0.44pt; display:inline-block } .s6B02B696 { width:159.34pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 53877/10 OTTO WOLFF HANDELSGESELLSCHAFT MBH against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 15   June 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Georges Ravarani,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 September 2010, Having regard to the decision to restore the application to its list of cases, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Otto Wolff Handelsgesellschaft mbH, was a limited liability trade company registered in Germany with its seat in Düsseldorf. The applicant was represented by Ana Diculescu-Şova, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Governement”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Catrinel Brumar, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The applicant’s complaint under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings was communicated to the Government on 23 October 2014. On 18 June 2015, the Court (Third Section) sitting as a Committee, decided to strike the application out of its list of cases in accordance with Article 39 of the Convention after a friendly settlement was reached. On 14 December 2015 the Government made a request to restore the application to the Court’s list of cases. In the course of the proceedings to enforce the Court’s decision, they were informed that on 28 April 2014 the applicant company merged with another company and the later took over all the applicant company’s assets and liabilities. On 28 April 2016 the Court allowed the Government’s request to restore the application to its list of cases. By letter dated 19 May 2016, the applicant company was notified that the application was restored to its list of cases. THE LAW Having regard to the new facts brought to its attention by the Government, the Court must examine whether, subsequent to the merger, the applicant may continue to claim to be a victim of a violation of Article 6   § 1 of the Convention on the grounds of the length of civil proceedings (see Dimitrescu v. Romania , nos. 5629/03 and 3028/04, §§ 33- 34, 3 June 2008). The Court notes that starting with 28 April 2014, before the communication of the case to the Government, the applicant company merged with another company. The applicant’s representative failed to provide any information in that respect to the Court and the new company did not inform the Court about its wish to pursue the application. This information became available to the Court by the request to restore the application to its list of cases submitted by the Government and allowed by the Court on 28 April 2016. In view of the above, the Court considers that the applicant has ceased to have victim status within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article   37 § 1 (c) of the Convention. 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 6 July 2017.   Liv Tigerstedt   Vincent A. De Gaetano   Acting Deputy Registrar   President