CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 17 octobre 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 } .sF7A86111 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; font-size:10pt } .s959B95E9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8031FF69 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:1pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8E1B9F9 { width:203.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 45934/11 Thodori DUNI against Albania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 17   October 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Valeriu Griţco, President,   Ledi Bianku,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakirci, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 July 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Thodori Duni, is an Albanian national, who was born in 1942 and lives in Greece. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Hicka of the State Advocate’s Office. The applicant complained under 6 § 1 of the Convention that the domestic courts failed to give adequate reasons in rejecting his claims, and that, in other similar cases, the domestic courts had reached different conclusions. The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government. They submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the case. The applicant failed to respond to the last Registry’s letter of 23   June   2017, reminding him that the period allowed for submission of his observations in reply had expired on 26 January 2017 and the period allowed for submission of an authority form for appointment of a lawyer had expired on 14 December 2016, and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. On 10 July 2011 the Registry’s letter of 23 June 2017 was returned undelivered with a note “moved without indicating an address” (“parti sans laisser d’ adresse”). The applicant has not to date resumed his correspondence with the Court. THE LAW The Court reiterates that, Article 37 of the Convention, in its relevant part, provides as follows: “1. The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or .... (c) for any other reason established by the Court, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application ...” The Court considers that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied. The Court also recalls that, pursuant to Rule 47 § 7 of the Rules of Court, “applicants shall keep the Court informed of any change of address and of all circumstances relevant to the application”. In this respect, it is to be noted that the applicant has failed to respond to correspondence from the Registry of the Court, the last of which was sent on 23 June 2017. Nor has the applicant informed the Court of any change of his address. 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 November 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Valeriu Griţco Deputy Registrar   President