CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 6 février 2018

.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 } .s172EF8F1 { width:208.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 65191/16 Nataša BACKOVIĆ against Montenegro The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 6   February 2018 as a Committee composed of:   Ledi Bianku, President,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 November 2016, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Ms Nataša Backović, is a Montenegrin national, who was born in 1973 and lives in Nikšić. She was represented before the Court by Mr G. Rodić, a lawyer practising in Podgorica. 2.     The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs V. Pavličić. 3.     The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that she had been denied access to a court given that the Supreme Court had refused to examine the merits of her appeal on points of law. 4.     On 26 June 2017 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant’s complaint detailed above. 5.     On 23 October 2017 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded on 3 November 2017 to the applicant, who was invited to submit observations in reply by 15 December 2017. 6.     On 16 December 2017 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant wanted to withdraw the application. THE LAW 7.     In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application (see Folgerø and Others v. Norway (dec.), no. 15472/02, 26 October 2004). 8.     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 1 March 2018.   Hasan Bakırcı   Ledi Bianku Deputy Registrar   President