CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITY;ENG — 28 juin 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 } .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 } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA68D9128 { width:171.94pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 10826/07 by Pavla VANIŠTOVÁ and Marie PEVNÁ against the Czech Republic The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 28 June 2011 as a Chamber composed of:   Dean Spielmann, President,   Karel Jungwiert,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Mark Villiger,   Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,   Ann Power,   Angelika Nußberger, judges, and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 March 2007, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE PROCEEDINGS The applicants, Ms Pavla Vaništová and Ms Marie Pevná, are Czech nationals who were born in 1963 and 1956 respectively and live in Prague. They were represented before the Court by Mr V.Vápeník, a lawyer practising in Prague. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Vít A. Schorm. The applicants complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that they had been deprived of their property to which dual ownership claims arose due to a misconduct of the national authorities. The applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits on 3 January 2011. The observations were forwarded to the applicants’s representative, who was invited to submit his own observations by 22 February 2011. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 25 March 2011, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the their observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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. On the same day, a copy of this letter was sent by registered post to Ms.   Vaništová. The return receipt originating from the letter to the applicants’ lawyer indicated that in the absence of the latter, the letter had been deposited at the relevant post office and the lawyer had been notified about it. Based on the return receipt originating from the letter to the applicants, the letter was delivered to Ms. Vaništová on 4 April 2011. However, no written response has been received from either party. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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. Claudia Westerdiek   Dean Spielmann   Registrar   President