CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 mai 2019

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6F7FC1B9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s80E2F039 { width:6.54pt; display:inline-block } .s32FB89E2 { width:193.09pt; display:inline-block } .s5B081A9D { width:168.28pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s33141CA1 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sF3108B01 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s288164EC { height:70.3pt }   FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 18895/04 Adrian DUMITRESCU and Others against Romania and 3 other applications (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16   May   2019 as a committee composed of:   Georges Ravarani, President,   Marko Bošnjak,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Liv Tigerstedt, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications lodged on the various dates indicated in the appended table, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The list of applicants is set out in the appended table. The applicants’ complaints under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the application of restitution laws in Romania were communicated to the Romanian Government (“the Government”), who submitted observations on the admissibility and merits. By letters sent by registered post on the dates indicated in the appended table, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations, as indicated in the appended table, had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ attention was drawn to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. No reply to these letters has been received by the Court (see details in the appended table). THE LAW Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single decision. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue the applications (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 the Protocols thereto which require the continued examination of the applications. Accordingly, the cases should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court, unanimously, Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Done in English and notified in writing on 6 June 2019.   Liv Tigerstedt   Georges Ravarani Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX   No. Application no.   Date of introduction Applicant name   Date of birth   Time-limit for submission of the applicants’ observations Date of the Court’s registered letter Return receipt 1. 18895/04   18/03/2004 Adrian DUMITRESCU 28/01/1954   Andrei Dragomir DUMITRESCU b: 17/04/1918 d: 06/05/2009   Manuela Rodica RADU 31/05/1945   Ștefan DUMITRESCU b: 05/05/1944 d: 17/08/2005   Vasilica DUMITRESCU 01/01/1922   Maria Ruxandra KOPPENBURG 07/06/1945 21/09/2018 22/10/2018 received by the applicants on 30/10/2018, no reply 2. 14605/06   05/04/2006 Grațiela Cornelia STOICA 23/03/1944   Voichița GALEA 16/02/1947   15/01/2019 21/02/2019 received by the applicants on 26/02/2019, no reply 3. 43575/06   19/10/2006   Antonin Nicolae MOGA 31/01/1921 18/06/2018 18/12/2018 returned as unclaimed by the post on 06/02/2019 4. 15643/07   21/03/2007 Radu Constantin PORTOCALĂ 27/03/1951   Esmeralda Andre PORTOCALĂ 03/02/1924 18/06/2018 09/01/2019     returned as unclaimed by the post on 28/01/2019