CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 janvier 2017

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB744559E { width:161.92pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 20225/11 Arben MURRJA against Albania The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 24   January 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos, President,   Aleš Pejchal,   Armen Harutyunyan, judges, and Renata Degener, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 February 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Arben Murraj (Murrja), is an Albanian national, who was born in 1980 and is currently serving a prison sentence in the Peqin prison. The Albanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Hicka of the State Advocate’s Office. The applicant complained under Articles 6 §§ 1 and 3 (d) of the Convention about unfairness of the criminal proceedings. The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government. They submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. In the meantime, the President of the Section refused the applicant’s request for self-representation in the proceedings before the Court, having regard to the nature of the complaints. The applicant was invited to provide, by 16   August 2016, an authority form for appointment of a lawyer. His attention was drawn to the fact that, if he had any difficulties finding an advocate, the National Bar Association could be able to assist him in obtaining suitable representation. He was further informed of the possibility of applying for legal aid in the proceedings before the Court. However, he did not reply to the Registry’s letter. By a letter dated 19 October 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant was informed that the period allowed for submission of an authority form for appointment of a lawyer had expired on 16 August 2016 and that no extension of that time-limit had been requested. He was again invited to submit an authority form for appointment of a lawyer by 18   November   2016. Furthermore, with the same letter, the Government’s observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his observations and just satisfaction claims by 30 November 2016. The applicant’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. The Registry’s letter was delivered on an unspecified date. The Registry received the postal receipt duly signed by the applicant on 3 November 2016. No reply has yet been received. THE LAW The Court considers that, in the circumstances of the present case, in the absence of any response to the correspondence from the Court, 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 (see   Bendžius   v. Lithuania (striking out), no. 67506/01, §§ 11 and 12, 28   March 2006). 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 16 February 2017. Renata Degener   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos Deputy Registrar   President