CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 8 septembre 2022

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .s4598CDF { width:70.9pt; display:inline-block } .sC646A315 { width:14.54pt; display:inline-block } .s1720DE1F { width:132.75pt; display:inline-block } .s9852CA4C { width:7.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9E436411 { width:138.09pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s6DB91820 { text-align:center } .s8BB62139 { margin-right:auto; margin-left:auto; border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .sDF237D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:8pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s7FDD75C9 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; letter-spacing:-0.2pt; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB217F55D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:8pt }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 24650/15 Floresha KALEMAJ against Albania (see appended table) The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8   September 2022 as a Committee composed of:   Andreas Zünd , President,   Darian Pavli ,   Frédéric Krenc , judges, and Viktoriya Maradudina, Acting Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 18   May 2015, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Ms Floresha Kalemaj, was born in 1962. She was represented by Ms I. Harka, a lawyer practising in Tirana. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention concerning the delayed enforcement of a domestic decision, were communicated to the Albanian Government (“the   Government”), the friendly ‑ settlement procedure being set in motion through the offices of the Registrar upon communication, followed by a unilateral declaration submitted by the Government. No reply was received by the Court from the applicant’s representative within the provided deadlines. By letter sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the Court received no reply within the time allowed for the submission of his response. Her attention was further 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. The letter could not be delivered as the representative had changed her address and had not informed the Registry about it. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, in the absence of any correspondence from the applicant or her representative for about four years and considering that, following the communication of the application to the Government, no reply was received to the Registry’s letters and the most recent letter was returned to the Court, the Court concludes that the applicant 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 application. 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 29 September 2022.     Viktoriya Maradudina   Andreas Zünd   Acting Deputy Registrar   President APPENDIX Application raising complaints under Article   6 § 1 of the Convention (non-enforcement or delayed enforcement of domestic decisions) Application no. Date of introduction Applicant’s name Year of birth   Representative’s name and location Other complaints under well-established case-law   Date of the Court’s last letter Date of attempted delivery of the Court’s letter by the Albanian Mail Service 24650/15 18/05/2015 Floresha KALEMAJ 1962 Iva Harka Tirana Prot. 1 Art. 1 interference with peaceful enjoyment of possessions as a result of the failure to enforce the judgment in the applicant’s favour. 03/02/2022 18/02/2022