CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 1 septembre 2020

.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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s490D418E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-size:1pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s58699FB5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s84651E4E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s814ABC14 { width:14.35pt; display:inline-block } .s384B5E06 { width:142.87pt; display:inline-block } .s8EFC8F8 { width:32.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9C6A147F { width:184.21pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 13982/12 ALFA MOBIL 1800 S.R.O. against Hungary   The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 1   September 2020 as a Chamber composed of:   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro, President,   Faris Vehabović,   Paul Lemmens,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Georges Ravarani,   Jolien Schukking,   Péter Paczolay, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 February 2012, Having regard to the observations submitted by the parties, Having regard to the fact that the Czech Government did not express the wish to intervene in the present case (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 § 1 (a) of the Rules of Court); Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant company is a limited liability company registered under Czech law, with its seat in Brno. It was represented by Mr P. Bátki, a lawyer practising in Budapest. 2.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Tallódi, of the Ministry of Justice. 3.     The applicant company complained that it had been unable to challenge the measures interfering with its property rights. It relied on Article 13 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article   1   of   Protocol   No.   1. 4.     On 1 March 2017 the Government were given notice of the complaint. The Government filed observations and the applicant company was requested to submit comments on them by 31 August 2017. The applicant company failed to respond to the Registry’s letter. By a letter dated 28   September 2017, the applicant company was reminded that the period allowed for submission of its observations on just satisfaction had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. Its attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. By a letter dated 30 October 2017, the applicant company informed the Court that it did not intend to submit observations but still wished to pursue its application. 5.     On 3 September 2019 the Section to which the case had been allocated invited the parties to submit factual information and further written observations on the admissibility and merits by 18 October 2019. 6.     The Government filed observations. 7.     By a letter dated 25 November 2019, the applicant company was requested to submit comments on those observations by 6 January 2020. 8.     The applicant company failed to respond to the Registry’s letter. 9.     By a subsequent letter dated 21 February 2020, sent by registered mail and received by the applicant company on 28 February 2020, the latter was notified that the period allowed for the submission of its comments had expired on 6 January 2020 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant company’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. This letter also remained unanswered. THE LAW 10.     The Court considers that, in the above circumstances, the applicant company may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue its 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. 11.     Accordingly, the case should be struck 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 24 September 2020.   Andrea Tamietti   Jon Fridrik Kjølbro   Registrar   President