CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 13 novembre 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 } .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 } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .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 } .s28D23796 { width:20.54pt; display:inline-block } .s9115381 { width:179.76pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } .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 } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 1834/04 by Martin BOHÁČ and Radka BOHÁČOVÁ against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13   November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:   Mr   P. Lorenzen , President ,   Mrs   S. Botoucharova ,   Mr   K. Jungwiert ,   Mr   R. Maruste ,   Mr   J. Borrego Borrego ,   Mrs   R. Jaeger ,   Mr   M. Villiger, judges , and Mrs C. Westerdiek , Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 January 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 applicants, Mr Martin Boháč and Mrs Radka Boháčová, are Czech nationals who were born in 1969 and 1970 respectively and live in Brno. They are represented before the Court by Mr F. Horák, a lawyer practising in Brno. The Czech Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice.   The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 18 December 1995 the Brno Regional Prosecutor’s Office ( krajské státní zastupitelství ) charged a certain J. R. with murder of the applicants’ 14 months’ old son, minded by him. The applicants joined the criminal proceedings as a civil party. In a judgment of 29 November 1996 the Brno Regional Court ( krajský soud ) found J. R. guilty of murder of the applicants’ son, sentencing him to twelve and a half years’ imprisonment. It ordered J.R. to pay compensation to the applicants amounting to CZK 8,356 (EUR 304 [1] ) referring them, in respect of their remaining claims for damages, to seek remedy in a civil suit. On 28 March 1997 the Olomouc High Court ( vrchní soud ) quashed this judgment and remitted the case to the Brno Regional Court which, on 17   September 1998, again found J.R. guilty of murder of the applicants’ son. On 8 March 1999 the High Court quashed, once again, the first instance judgment and remitted the case to the Regional Court which, on 11 October 2002, applying the Presidential amnesty, discontinued the criminal proceedings. On 13 October 2003 the High Court quashed this decision and remitted the case to the Regional Court which, on 13 October 2003, decided anew finding that J.R. was subject to amnesty.   In the meantime, on 4 June 2003, the Constitutional Court ( Ústavní soud ) had rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeal ( ústavní stížnost ) against delays in the criminal proceedings. COMPLAINT Invoking Article 6 § 1 of the Convention the applicants complained of the length of the criminal proceedings. THE LAW By letter dated 3 August 2006 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicants’ representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 14   September 2006. By letter dated 27 July 2007, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicants’ observations had expired on 14 September 2006 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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. The applicants’ representative received this letter on 3 August 2007. However, no response has been received. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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.   Claudia Westerdiek   Peer Lorenzen   Registrar   President   [1] 1 EUR = 27.48 CZK