ember 2008 the Court invited the parties to submit their further observations by 27 February 2009. The Government, but not the applicant, filed their observations within the specified time-limit.
22. In the absence of any reply from the applicant, by a registered letter of 16 April 2009 the Court drew the applicant's attention to the fact that the period allowed for submission of his observations and claims for just satisfaction had expired and that no extension of the deadline had been requested. The applicant was reminded that, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, 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.
23. The Court's letter reached the applicant's representative on 27 April 2009, the latter having signed the advice of receipt to that effect. No reply followed.
24. Having regard to the applicant's failure to communicate with the Court following its decision on admissibility, the Court finds that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court cannot discern any special circumstances regarding the respect for human rights as defined in the Convention which would require a continuation of the examination of the case (see, by way of contrast, Karner v. Austria, No. 40016/98, § 28, ECHR 2003-IX) and finds it appropriate to strike it out of the list of cases.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT UNANIMOUSLY
Decides to strike the case out of the list.
Done in English, and notified in writing on 8 October 2009, pursuant to Rule 77 §§ 2 and 3 of the Rules of Court.
Nina {VAJIC}
President
{Andre} WAMPACH
Deputy Registrar
> 1 2 3