CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 16 décembre 2008

.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 } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sFCF63115 { width:173.58pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 28827/03 by Zamfir CROITOR against Romania The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 16   December 2008 as a Chamber composed of:   Josep Casadevall, President,   Elisabet Fura-Sandström,   Corneliu Bîrsan,   Alvina Gyulumyan,   Egbert Myjer,   Ineta Ziemele,   Ann Power, judges, and Santiago Quesada, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 July 2003, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Zamfir Croitor, was a Romanian national who was born in 1934 and lived in Suceava. He died on 17 November 2005, but his daughter (Aspazia Spatariu) decided to continue the application. The three   heirs of his other deceased daughter (Lenuţa Croitor) did not manifest their willingness to pursue the application. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Răzvan-Horaţiu Radu. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 1 October 1992 C.G. brought an action against the applicant and other relatives seeking the partition of the inheritance that was jointly owned by them following the death of their respective husband and father. On 30 March 1998 the Suceava Court of First Instance divided the inheritance and allocated the shares to each of them. On 4 April 2000 the Suceava Regional Court allowed an appeal by some of the applicant's relatives, quashed the previous judgment and sent the case for a fresh examination. The court considered that the first-instance court had made some omissions which were equivalent with non-examination on the merits. During retrial, on 6 June 2001 the Court of First Instance delivered an interlocutory decision by which it established the assets of the property subject to partition, the value of the assets and the notional share of each heir. The parties did not lodge a separate appeal against this decision, which thus acquired the status of res judicata . On 30 October 2001 the Court of First Instance divided the inheritance and allocated shares. The applicant together with P.R. – another party – appealed, as they had not agreed with the shares. On 14 May 2002 the Regional Court dismissed the appeal as groundless, considering that the division had been correctly performed. On 14 January 2003 the Suceava Court of Appeal, by a final decision, dismissed as groundless a further appeal by the applicant and by P.R. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about an unfair trial, about the length of the proceedings and that the domestic courts had failed to assess the facts correctly and had not been impartial. The applicant complained under Article 14 of the Convention that he had been discriminated against on political grounds. The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that he had been deprived of 3,484 sq. m of land. THE LAW By a letter dated 5 February 2008 Mrs Aspazia Spatariu, inter alia , informed the Court that she was working temporarily in Italy, without providing any updated contact details for correspondence with the Court. By letter dated 28 August 2008 the Government made a proposal for a friendly settlement. By letter dated 5 September 2008, sent by registered post, the Government's observations together with their proposal for a friendly settlement were sent to Mrs Aspazia Spatariu, who was requested to inform the Court whether she accepted the proposal or to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 17 October 2008. The envelope returned as “unclaimed”. By letter dated 6 October 2008, sent by registered post, Mrs Aspazia Spatariu was notified that the previous letter was returned as unclaimed and was invited to inform the Court whether she wanted to pursue the proceedings. In the affirmative, she was to inform the Court whether she accepted the Government's proposal for a friendly settlement or submit her observations on the admissibility and merits of the case by 21 October 2008. Mrs Aspazia Spatariu'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, the envelope was returned as “unclaimed”. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, Mrs Aspazia Spatariu may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue this 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. Santiago Quesada   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President