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 >> Mamdouh HAMZA v the United Kingdom - 33291/06 [2009] ECHR 2089 (24 November 2009) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2009/2089.html Cite as: [2009] ECHR 2089 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no.
33291/06
by Mamdouh HAMZA
against the United Kingdom
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 24 November 2009 as a Chamber composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Nicolas
Bratza,
Giovanni
Bonello,
Ljiljana
Mijović,
Ján
Šikuta,
Mihai
Poalelungi,
Nebojša
Vučinić, judges,
and
Lawrence Early, Section
Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 August 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Mamdouh Hamza, an Egyptian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Cairo. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms J. Gladstone of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
The applicant’s complaint concerning Article 6 § 2 of the Convention was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant who was invited to submit his own observations by 28 July 2009.
By letter dated 14 September 2009, sent by post and facsimile, the applicant was notified that he had not submitted any observations. He was requested to inform the Court by 28 September 2009 whether he wished to maintain his application. No response has been received.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, 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.
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.
Lawrence Early Lech Garlicki
Registrar President