CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 30 août 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 } .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 } .s48E1953 { width:187.27pt; display:inline-block } FIFTH SECTION DECISION Applications nos. 8644/05 and 4911/07 by Vladimir CIGALE and Vojko VAH against Slovenia   The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30   August 2011 as a Committee composed of:   Ganna Yudkivska, President,   Boštjan M. Zupančič,   Angelika Nußberger, judges, and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above applications, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicant Mr Vladimir Cigale is a Slovenian national who was born in 1944 and lives in Warszawa. He was not represented before the Court. The applicant Mr Vojko Vah is a Slovenian national who was born in 1961 and lives in Trzin. He was represented before the Court by Mr R. Čevnik, a lawyer practising in Celje. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. The applicants 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 applicants’ complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter from any of the applicants. By letters dated 1 October 2010 and 8 February 2011, respectively, sent by registered post, the applicants were notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ 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 Mr Vladimir Cigale received this letter on 4 October 2010 and the representative of the applicant Mr Vojko Vah received this letter on 21   February 2011. However, no response has been received from any of the applicants. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 cases.   In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously   Decides to join the applications; Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases. Stephen Phillips   Ganna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar President