CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 22 octobre 2002

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s4B9804AC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sB8BE277E { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:48pt; font-size:14pt } .sE5B8ADA1 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:48pt; font-size:14pt } .sAC001F88 { margin-top:48pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s147369FC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sDEA336FF { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s8BD2CFA4 { width:35.21pt; display:inline-block } .sD5EF6EC4 { width:234.82pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 48831/99 by Grigore MARCU against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 22   October   2002 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   J.-P. Costa , President ,   Mr   L. Loucaides ,   Mr   C. Bîrsan ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   W. Thomassen ,   Mrs   A. Mularoni, judges , and Mrs S. Dollé , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26   October   1998, Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court, Having deliberated, decides as follows:     THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Grigore Marcu, is a Romanian national, who was born in 1917 and lives in Drobeta Turnu Severin, Romania. A.     The circumstances of the case In 1968, due to the erection of a power plant, the household of the applicant was displaced to another commune. Although he had previously owned a plot of land of 2,5 ha, he was only allocated a plot of land of 0,008   ha. In 1993 the applicant lodged with the District Court of Drobeta   Turnu   Severin an application seeking the allocation of a plot of   2,5   ha. On 18 November 1993 the court restored the applicant’s property right to the land and ordered the local Municipal Council to allocate such a plot to him. The county commission for the application of law no. 18/1991 (“the commission”) lodged an appeal against that decision on the ground that the location of the plot had not been determined by the first instance court. On 1 April 1994, the Regional Court of Mehedinţi allowed the appeal. In 1995 the applicant lodged an action against the commission by which he sought to enforce the judgment of 18   November 1993. On 1 September 1995, the Regional Court rejected the action on the ground that the defendant had not refused to recognise the applicant’s property right over the plot of land to be allocated. In 1996 the Craiova Court of Appeal rejected the applicant’s appeal against this decision on the ground that the commission was free to determine the location of the land to be allocated to the applicant. In 1999 the applicant complained about the non-enforcement of the judgment of 1 April 1994 to the local Municipal Council. In March 1999 the Municipal Council informed the applicant that it did not have any land at its disposal. COMPLAINTS The applicant originally complained, without invoking any provision of the Convention, that the non-enforcement of the judgment of 1 April 1994 violated his right to have his civil rights determined by a court. He also complained that, because of the non-enforcement of the judgment, he was unable to enjoy his possessions. Thus his right to property under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 had also been violated. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT The application was introduced on 26 October 1998 and registered on 6   June 1999. On 22 November 2001, under Rule   49 §   2   (a) of the Rules of Court, the Registrar of the Second Section requested the applicant to submit further information concerning the case. In particular, the applicant was invited to inform the Registrar whether he had been offered a specific plot of land in the meantime. The applicant failed to respond to this letter. On 13 March 2002, not having received any reply from the applicant, the Registry sent him a registered letter recalling the state of proceedings and drawing his attention to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. This letter was delivered to the applicant’s niece on 25 March 2002. The Court has received no reply. THE LAW The Court notes that the applicant failed to respond to the letters addressed to him. The Court further notes that the applicant was warned that his failure to reply might lead to a decision to strike the application out of the Court’s list of cases. Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention, the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the application. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   S. Dollé   J.-P. Costa   Registrar   President