CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 5 mai 2009

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .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 } .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 } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s51F2D829 { width:208.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 31215/05 by Ján ŠVÁBOVSKÝ against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5   May   2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Ljiljana Mijović,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Mihai Poalelungi, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 19 August 2005, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Ján Švábovský, was a Slovak national who was born in 1925 and lived in Poprad. The applicant died on 23 January 2008. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. 1.     The applicant’s action for dissolution of matrimonial property On 27 February 2001 the applicant brought an action against his former wife in the Poprad District Court seeking the division and distribution of their matrimonial property. In July 2006 the District Court discontinued the proceedings. In February 2007 the Prešov Regional Court, upon applicant’s appeal, quashed the first-instance decision to discontinue the proceedings. The District Court held a hearing in June 2007. 2.     Constitutional complaints On 30 January 2003 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint in respect of alleged violation of his property rights as being manifestly ill-founded. On 4 November 2004 the Constitutional Court found that there had been no violation of the applicant’s right to a hearing without unjustified delay. COMPLAINTS 1.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the length of the proceedings was excessive. 2.     The applicant also complained that the length of the proceedings constituted a violation of his rights protected under Article 1 of Protocol   No.   1. THE LAW By letter dated 14 February 2008 an advocate, who had represented the applicant in the domestic proceedings and, according to her letter, “was involved” in the proceedings before the Court, informed the Court that the applicant had died on 23 January 2008. By letter dated 27 March 2008 the advocate was invited to inform the Court whether any of the applicant’s heirs or next of kin wished to pursue the application in his stead. By letter dated 6 June 2008, sent by registered post, the advocate was notified that the period allowed for submission of the information requested had expired and no extension of time had been requested. The advocate’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases in such circumstances. The advocate received the Registry’s letter on 11 June 2008. However, no response has been received. The Court therefore considers that further examination of the case is not justified within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) 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 strike the case out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   Fatoş Aracı   Nicolas Bratza Deputy Registrar   President