CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 11 octobre 2005

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sFEE8C148 { width:13.68pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; display:inline-block } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s88A92475 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sDD165512 { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .sAA056121 { width:168.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no.   62219/00 by Tobiáš LOYKA against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 11   October 2005 as a   Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza , President ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   J. Šikuta, judges , and Mr M. O’Boyle , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 31   July 2000, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Tobiáš Loyka, is a Slovakian national, who was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava. He is represented before the Court by Mr   E.   Valko, a lawyer practising in Bratislava. The respondent Government are represented by Mrs A. Poláčková, their Agent The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be   summarised as follows. In November 1999 the applicant was arrested and subsequently remanded in detention on charges of extortion and making violent threats. In December 1999 further charges were brought against him. The applicant filed numerous unsuccessful requests for release. The judicial decisions dismissing his requests include those of 30   December   1999, 29 February, 7 April, 30 May, 5 June, 27 September and 22 November 2000 and 10 January 2001. The criminal proceedings against the applicant are still pending. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 5 § 4 of the Convention both taken alone and in conjunction with Article 13 of the Convention that the decisions in respect of his requests for release and the procedures leading to them were flawed on account of the lack of a public, oral and adversarial character and “speediness” and that he had not had an effective remedy in that respect. THE LAW The Court notes that by letter of 22 April 2005 the applicant was invited to reply, by 23 May 2005, to the observations of the Government on the above application and to submit any claims for just satisfaction. By registered letter of 23 June 2005 the Registrar of the Fourth Section informed the applicant that the period allowed for submission of his observations in reply and claims for just satisfaction had expired 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 that: “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.” On 7 July 2005 a postal delivery report ( avis de réception ) was received at the Court indicating that the above registered letter had been received by the applicants’ lawyer on 28 June 2005. The Court has received no reply to the above letters. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. 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 application 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Michael O’Boyle   Nicolas BRATZA   Registrar   President