CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 27 avril 2000

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s598389FD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:16pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s23A41E03 { width:36pt; display:inline-block } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sBA8DCCFC { width:35.45pt; display:inline-block } .s31BEBB9E { width:7.26pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE55CAA3E { width:1.26pt; display:inline-block } .s9872C2C6 { width:15.43pt; display:inline-block } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sCC843BA8 { width:25.33pt; display:inline-block } .s6863D229 { width:26pt; display:inline-block } .s35DC42DD { width:28.67pt; display:inline-block } .s3985515B { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC2250E92 { width:36.56pt; display:inline-block } .s2348ECBC { width:232.5pt; display:inline-block } .s8CFFFC6C { width:4.24pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION   DECISION   Application no. 37519/97 by Michal MACIK against the Slovak Republic     The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27 April 2000 as   a   Chamber composed of     Mr   C.L. Rozakis, President ,   Mr   M. Fischbach,   Mr   G. Bonello,   Mrs   V. Strážnická,   Mr   P. Lorenzen,   Mr   A.B. Baka,   Mr   A. Kovler, judges ,   and   Mr   E. Fribergh, Section Registrar ,     Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of   Human Rights on 7 March 1997 and registered on 27 August 1997,     Having regard to Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, by which the competence to examine the application was transferred to the Court,     Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,     Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS     The applicant, a Slovak national born in 1922, was involved in several sets of   proceedings which concerned:   a)   the action for restitution of land filed with the Michalovce District Court ( Okresný súd ) by the association of the former owners of pastures in Jasenov of which the applicant was both a member and a representative;   b)   the applicant’s action for compensation of 4 March 1992 lodged with the Bratislava 1 District Court ( Obvodný súd );   c)   the applicant’s action for restitution of real property and reimbursement of his shares in the property of the AGROVEX co-operative in Blatná Polianka lodged with the Humenné District Court on 10 September 1993;   d)   the applicant’s action of 1991 against the Vihorlat co-operative in Vyšná Rybnica concerning restitution of land and compensation for agricultural property;   e)   the recovery of a debt of the Vihorlat co-operative;   f)   the applicant’s action against his relatives filed with the Michalovce District Court and concerning restitution of property and compensation.   COMPLAINT     The applicant complained about the length of the above proceedings and alleged a   violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.   PROCEDURE     The application was introduced before the European Commission of Human Rights on 7 March 1997 and registered on 27 August 1997.     On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to   the   Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.     On 14 September 1999 the Court decided to communicate the application to the respondent Government.     The Government’s written observations were submitted on 20 December 1999.     The applicant was invited to submit his observations in reply by 8   March 2000. On   18   February 2000 the post returned the mail sent by the Court’s Registry with the explanation that the applicant had died.         THE LAW     There is no indication that, following the applicant’s death, his heirs or next-of-kin wish to pursue the application. The Court further considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue with the examination of the case. The application may therefore be struck off the list of cases pursuant to Article 37 § 1 (c) of   the Convention.     For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,   DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES .             Erik Fribergh   Christos Rozakis   Registrar President