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 >> Adrian Roman CRECY v Romania - 18977/07 [2011] ECHR 1861 (11 October 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2011/1861.html Cite as: [2011] ECHR 1861 |
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
18977/07
by Adrian Roman CRECY
against
Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 October 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ján
Šikuta, President,
Ineta
Ziemele,
Kristina
Pardalos, judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli,
Deputy Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 April 2007,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Adrian Roman Crecy, is a Romanian national who was born in 1979 and lives in Bucharest. He was represented before the Court by Mr G. Runcanu, a lawyer practising in Bucharest. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Co-Agent, Ms I. Cambrea, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicant complained under Articles 6 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1 about the application of the restitution laws in Romania.
On 13 July 2011 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant wanted to withdraw the application in so far as his claims have been satisfied at a domestic level.
THE LAW
In the light of the foregoing, and in the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
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.
Marialena Tsirli Ján
Šikuta
Deputy Registrar President