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 £1, 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 >> Thomas MINTH and Rosina MINTH v Romania - 37711/06 [2010] ECHR 2055 (23 November 2010) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2010/2055.html Cite as: [2010] ECHR 2055 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
37711/06
by Thomas MINTH and Rosina MINTH
against Romania
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 23 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabet
Fura,
President,
Boštjan
M. Zupančič,
Ineta
Ziemele, judges,
and
Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 September 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr. Thomas Minth and Ms Rosina Minth, German nationals who were born in 1941 and 1940 respectively and live in Leonberg, Germany. The Romanian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr. Răzvan Horaţiu Radu, from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention about the impossibility to obtain compensation for nationalized property and under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the fairness of the proceedings.
On 4 December 2009 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicants’ complaint under Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention.
On 1 September 2010 the applicants informed the Court that they wish to withdraw the application. They did not provide information as to the reasons for their wish to withdraw the application.
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 Elisabet Fura
Deputy Registrar President
