CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 24 juin 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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s636D9C1 { width:38.55pt; display:inline-block } .s20D81CDA { width:156.42pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 48632/06 by Pavel MASLO against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 24   June   2010 as a Committee composed of:   Elisabet Fura, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Ineta Ziemele, judges, and Stanley Naismith, Deputy Section Registrar , Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 October 2006, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having regard to Protocol No. 14, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS 1.     The applicant, Mr Pavel Maslo, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1927 and lives in Koper. He was represented before the Court by Mr   Ervin Dokič, a lawyer practising in Piran. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr   Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney-General. COMPLAINTS 2.     The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of criminal proceedings that he had instituted against S.J. and P.S. and under Article   13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. The applicant also relied on Article 14 and complained that he could not lodge a request for protection of legality before the Supreme Court, since such competences are only vested in the public prosecutor. In substance, he also invoked Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 with respect to the damage he had allegedly suffered on account of the criminal acts of S.J. and P.S. and the protracted proceedings. THE LAW 3.     On 7 April 2009 the Court decided to give notice of the application to the Government as regards the applicant's complaints under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention. 4.     On 5 August 2009 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. The observations were forwarded to the applicant's representative, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry's letter. 5.     By a letter dated 14 December 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant's representative was again requested to respond to the Registry's letter. 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 the letter on 21 December 2009. However, no response has been received. 6.     The Court recalls Article   37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows: “1.     The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that (a)     the applicant does not intend to pursue his application; or ... However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.” 7.     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. 8.     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.   Stanley Naismith   Elisabet Fura Deputy Registrar   President