CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 6 septembre 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 } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s160BBE39 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:20.15pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:8.8pt; font-size:10pt } .s45EC7D31 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .s9922FEC8 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .s6B64E62F { width:203.14pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .s60570E66 { width:233.81pt; display:inline-block } SECOND SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 45485/99 by Munir Ali LANEWALA against Denmark The European Court of Human Rights, sitting on 6 September 2001 as a Chamber composed of   Mr   C.L. Rozakis , President ,   Mr   A.B. Baka ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   P. Lorenzen ,   Mrs   M. Tsatsa-Nikolovska ,   Mr   E. Levits ,   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 17   February   1998 and registered by the Court on 19   January   1999, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Munir Ali Lanewala, is a Canadian national, born in 1941 and living in Greve, Denmark. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicant runs a small taxi business. At the relevant time he owned 3 vehicles and had 6 drivers employed. On 19 April 1993 one of the employed drivers was stopped by the police as the taxi’s rear tyres did not meet certain requirements. For this offence the applicant, as owner of the taxi, was charged on 29   April   1993 with a violation of section   67   §   2 of the Danish Traffic Act ( færdselsloven ). An indictment of 31 October 1994 was forwarded to the City Court of Roskilde ( retten i Roskilde ) which on 16 January 1995 found the applicant guilty of the charges brought against him and sentenced him to pay a fine of 350 Danish kroner (DKK). The judgment was appealed against to the High Court of Eastern Denmark ( Østre Landsret ). Before the High Court the applicant argued, inter alia , that section   67   §   2 of the Danish Traffic Act was a rule imposing strict criminal liability which was incompatible with EU regulations concerning free movement as well as Denmark’s obligation under Articles   6   §   2 of the Convention. Three hearings were subsequently held in the High Court. At the first hearing on 25   March   1996 the case was adjourned in order to clarify certain facts. At the second hearing on 30   April   1997 counsel for the defence distributed a collection of legal documents to which he wanted to refer in his closing arguments. Consequently the court adjourned the case once more. A final hearing was held on 29   August   1997. By judgment of 5   September   1997 the High Court upheld the Roskilde City Court judgment. The applicant did not apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court ( Højesteret ). COMPLAINTS The applicant complained, under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, that the criminal charge against him was not determined within a reasonable time. PROCEDURE On 19   October   2000 the Court decided, under Rule 54 §   3 (b) of the Rules   of Court, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and invite them to submit written observations on the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings. The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible. In a letter of 20   December   2000 the applicant’s representative submitted: “ This is to inform you that I have informed my client, Munir A. Lanewala, that I do not wish to represent him any further in this matter. I trust that Mr Lanewala will advice you about his future representation before the European Court of Human Rights.” The Government’s observations, submitted on 2   February 2001, were transmitted to the applicant on 27   February 2001 and he was invited to submit his obeservations in reply before 10   April   2001. On 4   May   2001, not having received any comments from the applicant, the Registry sent him a registrered letter recalling the state of proceedings and drawing his attention to Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. The applicant did not reply. THE LAW In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application (Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention). It is satisfied that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto does not require a continuation of the application (Article   37   §   1 in fine 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