CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 10 juillet 2006

.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 } .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 } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s64C69EF9 { width:181.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION FINAL DECISION Application no. 3682/02 by Jiří BEDNÁŘ against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 10   July   2006 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   V. Butkevych ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 14 December 2001, Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together. Having regard to the partial decision of 14 September 2004, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Jiří Bednář, is a Czech national who was born in 1969 and lives in Prague. He was represented before the Court by Mr Š. Roman, a   lawyer practising in Prague. The Government of the Czech Republic were represented by their Agent, Mr V. A. Schorm, Ministry of Justice. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 31 October 1997 the applicant, together with accomplices, allegedly stole CZE 28,000,000 (EUR 994,067) from the Prague 6 District Post Office, using two cars. On 17 December 1997 the applicant was detained and, on 18   December   1997, was charged with robbery committed in complicity with others. On 19   December 1997 a judge at the Prague 6 District Court ( obvodní soud ) remanded him in custody. On 3 April 1998 the Prague Municipal Court ( městský soud ) dismissed the applicant’s complaint against this decision. On 17 June 1998 the applicant’s detention was extended until 17   August 1998. On 29 June and 5 October 2000 the applicant refused to have his blood taken for DNA analysis. In the meantime, on 19 July 2000 the Criminology Institute had informed the Prague Police Investigation Office that a sample of the applicant’s blood or saliva was necessary for the DNA analysis. On 16   August 2000 the applicant refused to provide further samples. On 12   October 2000 the Prague Police Investigator fined the applicant for such a refusal. On 27 November 2000 the Municipal Prosecutor dismissed the latter’s appeal against this decision as being unsubstantiated. On 12 June 2001 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ) as being manifestly ill-founded. In a judgment of 18 April 2002 the Municipal Court acquitted the applicant. On 5 September 2002 the Prague High Court ( Vrchní soud ) dismissed the Municipal Prosecutor’s appeal against the first instance judgment. On 30 December 2002 the Minister of Justice filed a complaint against a   breach of law ( stížnost pro porušení zákona ). On the next day the Office of the Prosecutor General ( Nejvyšší státní zastupitelství ) lodged an appeal on points of law ( dovolání ). On 15 April 2003 the Supreme Court ( Nejvyšší soud ) dismissed both extraordinary remedies. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the criminal proceedings. THE LAW The Court observes that by a letter of 22 December 2004 the applicant’s legal representative was invited to reply, by 31 January 2005, to the observations of the Government on the above application and to submit any claims for just satisfaction. By a registered letter of 12 October 2005 the Registrar of the Second Section informed the applicant’s legal representative that the period allowed for submission of his observations and claims for just satisfaction had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides: “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 25 October 2005 a postal delivery report ( avis de réception ) was received at the Court indicating that the registered letter of 12 October 2005 had been received by the applicant’s legal representative on 20   October   2005. The Court has received no reply to the above letter. 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.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President