CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 19 janvier 2010

.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 } .s434D37A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; 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 } .sF8DCB537 { width:16.53pt; display:inline-block } .s25347E17 { width:182.43pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 18596/05 by Miloš ĎURKA against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 19   January 2010 as a Chamber composed of:   Nicolas Bratza, President,   Lech Garlicki,   Giovanni Bonello,   Ljiljana Mijović,   Ján Šikuta,   Mihai Poalelungi,   Nebojša Vučinić, judges, and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 May 2005, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant, Mr Miloš Ďurka, is a Slovak national who was born in 1963 and lives in Košice. He was represented before the Court by Mr J.   Olej, a lawyer practising in Košice. 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. On 24 September 2003 the Košice Regional Court found the applicant guilty of having prepared a murder and sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment. In the absence of an appeal the judgment became final on 7   November 2003. Following a complaint in the interest of law (sťažnosť pre porušenie zákona) lodged by the Prosecutor General on 7 May 2004, the Supreme Court quashed the above judgment on 22 June 2004 and remitted the case to the Regional Court. It concluded that the judgment had been adopted unlawfully in the applicant’s favour. On 24 November 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s complaint under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention for lack of jurisdiction. The criminal proceedings are still pending. COMPLAINTS The applicant complained that the Supreme Court’s decision of 22   June 2004 to quash the judgment which had become final on 7   November 2003 had been contrary to his right to a fair trial under Article   6 §   1 of the Convention. THE LAW By letter dated 15 September 2009 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 27   October 2009. By letter dated 23 November 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant’s observations had expired on 27   October 2009 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. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 27   November 2009. 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 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.   Lawrence Early   Nicolas Bratza   Registrar   President