[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	European Court of Human Rights
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Elisabeta BAKOS, Anton MOLDOVAN and Dumitru BALTAG v Romania - 22257/04 [2012] ECHR 161 (10 January 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2012/161.html

[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Applications nos. 22257/04, 38559/04 and 44990/04
Elisabeta BAKOS, Anton MOLDOVAN and Dumitru BALTAG

against Romania

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 January 2012 as a Committee composed of:

Egbert Myjer, President,

Luis López Guerra,

Mihai Poalelungi, judges,

and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to the above applications lodged on 21 May 2004, 26 August 2004 and 3 November 2004,

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicants, Ms Elisabeta Bakos, Mr Anton Moldovan and
Mr Dumitru Baltag, are Romanian nationals. The first two applicants live in Targu Mures and the third applicant lives in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent,
Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

The circumstances of the cases

The facts of the cases, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.

The applicants complained of the non-enforcement of final judgments ordering state authorities to issue title deeds and put them in possession of plots of formerly nationalised land (applications nos. 22257/04 and 44990/04) or to pay compensation for ethnic persecution (application
no. 38559/04). They invoked Article 6 § 1 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.

By letters dated 5 August and 19 October 2011, the latter sent by registered mail, the applicant in application no. 22257/04 was notified that the period allowed for the submission of her observations and claims for just satisfaction had expired on 5 December 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested.

By a letter dated 10 September 2009 and a subsequent one dated
12 October 2011 sent by registered mail, the applicant in application
no. 38559/04 was notified that the period allowed for the submission of his observations and claims for just satisfaction had expired on 30 April 2009 and that no extension of time had been requested.

By a letter dated 27 October 2009, after the exchange of observations between the parties was concluded, the applicant in application
no. 44990/04 was requested to submit additional information by
16 November 2009. By a letter of 5 August 2011, sent by registered mail, the request was reiterated and a new time limit was set for 15 September 2011.

All applicants’ 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.

All the above-mentioned letters in all applications remained unanswered.

THE LAW

 Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to join them in a single decision.

The Court considers that, in the above circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases.

In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases 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.

Marialena Tsirli Egbert Myjer
Deputy Registrar President