CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 12 juin 2007

.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 } .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 } .s7EE1C8F0 { margin-top:18pt; margin-left:29.2pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s8378218E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s8AB83B9 { width:147.82pt; display:inline-block } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .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 } .s988562EE { width:30.55pt; display:inline-block } .sC66E01D3 { width:215.45pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 37308/03 by Jozef SIPSKÝ and Others against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 12   June 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Sir   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Mr   J. Casadevall,   Mr   G. Bonello,   Mr   K. Traja,   Mr   S. Pavlovschi,   Mr   J. Šikuta,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä, judges, and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 November 2003, 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 observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants, whose particulars appear in the annex, are siblings. They are Slovakian nationals. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková. A.     The circumstances of the case The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. The applicants inherited plots of land from their father who had died on 9   April 2001. The land had been put at the disposal of the garden colonies “Družba” and “Reneta” near the town of Prešov in 1963 and 1964 respectively. a)     The land used by gardeners in the colony “Reneta” On 5 August 2003 the District Office in Prešov delivered a decision on the compensation to be paid to owners of land used by gardeners in the above colony. The decision indicated that the proceedings had been brought in accordance with the relevant provisions of Act 64/1997. On 21 March 2003 the land owners had been invited to inform the administrative authority whether they preferred pecuniary compensation or different land of a surface area and quality corresponding to the land which they originally owned. On 23 August 2006 the applicants informed the Court that they had not accepted plots of land which had been offered to them as their quality did not correspond to their land which the gardeners had acquired. The proceedings related to the compensation of the applicants are pending. b)     The land used by gardeners in the colony “Družba” On 14 November 2003 the District Office in Prešov informed the applicants, together with the other owners, that an inventory of the land and its owners had been established in the context of proceedings under Act 64/1997. The applicants and the other owners of the land in issue filed objections which the District Land Office in Prešov dismissed on 4 April 2006. On 20   October 2006 the second-instance administrative authority returned the case to the District Land Office for a new decision. The proceedings are pending. c) Applicants’ claim for restitution of their land In 2004 the owners of the land including the applicants brought proceedings claiming that the gardeners should vacate the land used by individual gardeners in three colonies where their plots of land are located. The plaintiffs claimed that the gardeners were using the land without any legal title. The proceedings are pending before the District Court in Prešov. B.     Relevant domestic For a recapitulation of the relevant domestic law and practice see Urbárska obec Trenčianske Biskupice and Ján Krátky v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 74258/01, 12 September 2006). COMPLAINT   The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that an excessive burden had been imposed on them in the context of the transfer of their land to individual gardeners under Act 64/1997. THE LAW The Court observes that by a letter of 8 January 2007 the applicants were invited to reply, by 20 February 2007, to the observations of the Government on the above application. By a registered letter of 17 April 2007 the Registrar of the Fourth Section informed the applicants that the period allowed for submission of their observations in reply had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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.” The postal delivery report ( avis de réception ) indicates that the registered letter of 17 April 2007 had been received by the applicants on 26   April   2007. The Court has received no reply to the above two letters. In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicants do not intend to pursue their application. The Court finds no reason to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously. Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President A N N E X     LIST OF APPLICANTS       1. Mr Jozef SIPSKÝ, born in 1967 and residing in Vranov nad Topľou; appointed to represent the two other applicants.   2. Ms Ľuboslava SIPSKÁ, born in 1971 and residing in Vranov nad Topľou.   3. Ms Mária KRAJČOVÁ, born in 1960 and residing in Prešov.