CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 16 octobre 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 } .s61ED8A2B { width:14.36pt; display:inline-block } .s61E420C2 { font-family:Arial; font-variant:small-caps } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s3CA6E042 { width:12.35pt; 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 } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .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 } .s8C2BF086 { width:220.78pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 13468/04 by Ján MARINKO against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16   October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   J. Casadevall , President ,   Mr   G. Bonello ,   Mr   K. Traja ,   Mr   L. Garlicki ,   Ms   L. Mijović ,   Mr   J. Šikuta ,   Mrs   P. Hirvelä, judges , and Mr T.L. Early , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 6 April 2004, 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 applicant, Mr Ján Marinko, is a Slovak national who was born in 1932 and lives in Vyšná Vôľa. He was represented before the Court by Ms   A. Petrášová, a lawyer practising in Bardejov. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     Action no. Cb 394/97 On 19 November 1997 the applicant brought an action against a private company T. in the Bardejov District Court ( Okresný súd ). He sought an   order for payment of an amount of money for lumber that he had supplied to the defendant. On 27 May 2003 the District Court granted the action but the judgment was quashed on 5 February 2004 by the Prešov Regional Court ( Krajský súd ) on the ground that the defendant company had been wound up and dissolved in the meantime. 2.     Action no. 11C 2512/97 On 19 November 1997 the applicant brought an action against T. in the District Court seeking an order for payment of an amount of money in consideration for the use by T. of a lathe belonging to the applicant. On 28 September 2004 the District Court granted the action. The judgment became final and binding on 23 November 2004. 3.     Action no. 7C 300/99 On 20 April 1999 the applicant brought an action against T. in the District Court seeking an order for possession of the lathe. On 15 January 2004 the District Court granted the action. The trustee in liquidation of the defendant appealed but failed to pay the court fee for the appeal and the proceedings were discontinued as a result. 4.     Constitutional complaint On 14 March 2003 the applicant challenged the length of the above three sets of proceedings under Article 127 of the Constitution. On 15 October 2003 the Constitutional Court ( Ústavný súd ) found that in the proceedings in actions nos. Cb 394/97 and 11C 2512/97 there had been a violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing “without unjustified delay” (Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution) and “within a reasonable time” (Article 6 § 1 of the Convention). The Constitutional Court ordered that the District Court deal with these proceedings expeditiously, pay the applicant 35,000 Slovakian korunas [1] (SKK) by way of just satisfaction in respect of non ‑ pecuniary damage and reimburse his legal costs. At the same time it found that there had been no violation of the applicant’s above rights in the proceedings in action no. 7C 300/99 and dismissed the remainder of the applicant’s claim for just satisfaction. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of all three sets of his proceedings had been excessive. THE LAW By letter dated 18 April 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant’s representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 30   May 2007. By letter dated 14 June 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 30 May 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s representative’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. A postal delivery report ( avis de réception ) was returned by the postal services to the Court indicating that the applicant’s representative had received this letter. However, no response has been received. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Furthermore, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 in fine , the Court finds no special circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which require the continued examination of the case. In view of the above, it is appropriate to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and to strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   T.L. Early   Josep Casadevall   Registrar   President   [1] SKK 35,000 is equivalent to approximately 1,000 euros.