BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Roland GREGORICS v Hungary - 36711/05 [2010] ECHR 1785 (20 October 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/1785.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 1785 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
36711/05
by Roland GREGORICS
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 20 October 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise
Tulkens,
President,
Danutė
Jočienė,
Dragoljub
Popović,
András
Sajó,
Nona
Tsotsoria,
Kristina
Pardalos,
Guido
Raimondi,
judges,
and Stanley Naismith,
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 October 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The
application was lodged by Mr Roland Gregorics, a Hungarian national
who was born in 1978 and lives in Budapest. He is represented before
the Court by Mr Z. Kemenczei, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The
Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented
by
Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration
and Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length and fairness of criminal proceedings conducted against him.
The applicant's fairness complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry's letter.
By letter dated 23 October 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant's representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 6 October 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's representative'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. However, no response has been received. Upon enquiry by the Registry, the applicant's representative confirmed on 24 September 2010 that the applicant was no longer interested in pursuing the case.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his 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.
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.
Stanley Naismith Françoise Tulkens
Registrar President