CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 mai 2001

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .sB8987CE9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .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 } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sBB5E682E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sF604F523 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; font-size:14pt } .s145CCEB3 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9019FD2F { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s451A1BF5 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s377C1984 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sA918FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.4pt } .s588BDBF1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .sBED5F98F { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s27B9D758 { width:204.81pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION DECISION AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF Applications no. 33088/96, 52236/99, 52451/99, 52452/99, 52453/99, 52455/99, 52457/99, 52458/99 and 52459/99 by A.J. against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 10   May 2001 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mrs   V. Strážnická ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mr   M. Fischbach ,   Mr   E. Levits , judges , and Mr E. Fribergh, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above applications introduced with the European Commission of Human Rights on 26 March 1996, 26 August 1999 and 18   October 1999 respectively and registered on 20 September 1996, 20   October 1999 and 8 November 1999 respectively, 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 7 September 2000, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, is a Slovak national, born in 1946 and living in Žiar nad Hronom.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.   1. Proceedings concerning the termination of the applicant’s contract of employment with the Aluminium Works in Žiar nad Hronom   On 28 December 1993 the applicant challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal from the Aluminium works in Žiar nad Hronom. Later he extended his action and claimed, inter alia , compensation for two days’ pay which, in his view, had been unlawfully deduced from his salary in August 1993. On 1 March 1996 the Žiar nad Hronom District Court ( Okresný súd ) dismissed the action. In the judgment the District Court found that the applicant had been dismissed in accordance with the law. The court further held that the applicant had no arguable claim for compensation. The judgment did not expressly mention the above claim concerning the deduction of two days’ salary in August 1993. On 16 April 1996 the applicant appealed and alleged, inter alia , that the District Court had not decided on that claim. On 5 September 1996 the Banská Bystrica Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) upheld the first instance judgment.   2. The applicant’s claim under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act   On 30 September 1991 the applicant lodged an action with the Žiar nad Hronom District Court. He challenged the lawfulness of his dismissal in 1972 and requested the delivery of a certificate under the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act. He also claimed that his former employer should offer him a job. On 20 March 1992 the Žiar nad Hronom District Court informed the applicant that the case had been transferred, for reasons of jurisdiction, to the Zvolen District Court on 8 October 1991. In a letter of 31 October 1991 a judge of the Zvolen District Court informed the applicant, with reference to the relevant provisions of the Extra-Judicial Rehabilitations Act, that there was no need for a formal decision to be taken.   Subsequently the applicant unsuccessfully complained to the Banská Bystrica Regional Court, to the Supreme Court ( Najvyšší súd) and also to the Ministry of Justice that his action had not been proceeded with.   3. Proceedings concerning the theft from the applicant’s car in 1997   On 8 December 1997 three persons were indicted before the Žiar nad Hronom District Court on the ground that they had broken into the applicant’s car and had stolen objects therefrom. On 28 January 1998 the Žiar nad Hronom District Court decided to deal with the charges against one of the accused in a separate set of proceedings. On 29 January 1998 the Žiar nad Hronom District Court convicted the other two accused of theft and ordered them to pay jointly a compensation of 6,783 SKK to the applicant. The judgment stated that any outstanding damages could be claimed in civil proceedings. On 29 April 1998 the appellate court convicted the two accused of theft on several counts. It upheld the first instance decision on the claims for damages. On 5 June 1998 the case file was submitted to the Levice District Court with a view to determining the charges against the third accused. On 23   September 1999 the Levice District Court issued a penal order convicting the third accused of theft. The applicant and the other persons claiming damages were instructed to lodge their claims with a civil court. The applicant challenged the penal order requesting that the criminal court should determine his claim for damages. On 23 January 2001 the Levice District Court pardoned the perpertrator of the offence with reference to the presidential grace of 14   December 2000. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained (i) that his claim for compensation for lost income had not been determined by the courts, (ii)   that his action for rehabilitation lodged with the Žiar nad Hronom District Court on 30   November 1991 had not been decided upon and (iii)   that his right to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time had been violated in the proceedings in which the Levice District Court had issued the penal order of 23 September 1999. He alleged a violation of Articles 6   §   1 and 13 of the Convention. THE LAW The Court observes that by letter of 2 January 2001 the applicant was invited to reply to the observations of the Government. By another letter of 7   March 2001 and by registered letter of 28 March 2001 the Registrar of the Second Section informed the applicant that the period allowed for submission of his observations on the admissibility and merits of the applications had expired on 13 February 2001 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides: “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.”   The above registered letter was delivered to the applicant’s wife on 4   April 2001. The Court has received no reply. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his applications. The Court also considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the case. The applications should therefore be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.     Erik Fribergh   Christos Rozakis   Registrar   President