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 } .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 } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s3AC33C1 { width:206.78pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 47451/06 by Marta BELÁKOVÁ against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5   May   2009 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Giovanni Bonello,   David Thór Björgvinsson,   Ján Šikuta,   Päivi Hirvelä,   Ledi Bianku,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 November 2006, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mrs Marta Beláková, is a Slovak national who was born in 1949 and lives in Levice. The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their co-Agent, Mrs M. Bálintová. The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows. On 25 March 2003 the applicant filed an action with the Levice District Court. She sought the dissolution of a joint ownership of real property. On 4 May 2006 the Constitutional Court found that the District Court had violated the applicant’s right under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention to a hearing within a reasonable time. The case was not particularly complex and the applicant by her conduct had contributed to the length of the proceedings to a certain extent. After three years the proceedings had only reached the stage of obtaining expert evidence. There had been several unjustified delays imputable to the District Court. The Constitutional Court held that the finding of a violation of the right in issue provided appropriate just satisfaction to the applicant. It ordered the Levice District Court to avoid any further delay in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s legal costs. On 9 February 2007 the District Court decided to obtain documentary evidence concerning the real property in issue. On 27 February 2007 the District Court appointed an expert to estimate the value of the property. On 28 January 2008 the applicant informed the District Court that she had sold her part of the property on 17 December 2007 and that the new owner would pursue the action. COMPLAINT The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings were unreasonably long. THE LAW By letter dated 7 July 2008 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 15 August 2008. By letter dated 8 December 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 15 August 2008 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’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 applicant received this letter on 15 December 2008. However, no response has been received. The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court finds no reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). 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