CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 25 janvier 2011

.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 } .sEB98FB19 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sE256019B { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBAD0D18F { width:1.87pt; display:inline-block } .sD7DE76AD { width:201.77pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block } THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 25867/06 by Roman GUBENŠEK against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 25   January 2011 as a Committee composed of: Elisabet Fura, President, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Ineta Ziemele, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 May 2006, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The application was lodged by Mr Roman Gubenšek, a Slovenian national who was born in 1973 and lives in Podčetrtek. He was represented before the Court by Mr D. Mikša, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows: The applicant was a party to civil proceedings which were finally resolved less than three months after the implementation of the Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”). COMPLAINTS The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings and under Article   13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard. THE LAW On 8 September 2009 the case was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 25 March 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 19 February 2010 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 29 March 2010. 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 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.   Marialena Tsirli   Elisabet Fura Deputy Registrar   President