CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 8 février 2001

.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 } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s84D0D60A { width:8.36pt; display:inline-block } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s48F8B750 { font-size:8pt; display:none } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sE8EB5753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s6BBACBD8 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .sEEE3CE35 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s7A3B44D7 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sEF8F76C5 { width:20.87pt; display:inline-block } .s93B30DFA { width:207.46pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s3C4DB099 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; font-size:10pt } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sC7EAD8B { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline } FOURTH SECTION   FINAL DECISION   Application no. 48084/99 by Aleksandar KRALJEK against Croatia     The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 8   February   2001 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   G. Ress , President ,   Mr   I. Cabral Barreto ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mrs   N. Vajić ,   Mr   J. Hedigan ,   Mr   M. Pellonpää ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova , judges , [Note1] and   Mr   V. Berger , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 21 October 1998 and registered on 11 May 1999, 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 partial decision of 25 May 2000, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 4   September   2000, Having regard to the applicant’s letter of 13 December 2000 informing the Court that he no longer wishes to pursue his application, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant is a Croatian citizen, born in 1932 and living in Zagreb. He is represented before the Court by Ms Jadranka Sloković-Glumac, a lawyer practising in Zagreb. The respondent Government are represented by their agent Ms Lidija Lukina-Karajković. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. As from 1 October 1992 the applicant’s military pension was reduced to some 63,22 % of what it amounted to in December 1991. The applicant challenged that decision and, after exhaustion of other remedies, lodged a constitutional complaint related to the reduction of his pension and challenging the constitutionality of the laws that served as the basis for such a reduction. On 20 January 1999 the Constitutional Court ( Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske ) terminated the proceedings due to the enactment of new legislation. COMPLAINT Referring to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 20 January 1999 the applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the Constitutional Court failed to decide his claim. THE LAW By letter of 13 December 2000 the applicant notified the Court that he no longer wishes to pursue his application. Article 37 § 1 of the Convention provides, insofar as relevant: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a)     the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; (...) However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires” In the circumstances, the Court concludes that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Furthermore, the Court finds no reasons of a general character, as defined in Article 37 § 1 in fine , which would require the examination of the application. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Vincent Berger   Georg Ress   Registrar   President     [Note1]   Judges names are to be followed by a COMMA and a MANUAL LINE BREAK (Shift+Enter). When inserting names via AltS please remove the substitute judge’s name, if necessary, and the extra paragraph return(s). (There is to be no extra space between the judges’ names and that of the Section Registrar.)