CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 11 octobre 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 Application no. 6605/07 by Frančišek ROTNIK and Others against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11   October 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 application lodged on 21 December 2006, Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government, Having deliberated, decides as follows: THE FACTS The applicants are all Slovenian nationals. The applicant Mr Frančišek Rotnik was born in 1968 and lives in Velenje. The applicant Mr Rudolf Novak was born in 1973 and lives in Šoštanj. The applicant Ms Ida Ježovnik was born in 1957 and lives in Šoštanj. The applicant Julijana Mohorko was born in 1925 and lives in Šoštanj. All the applicants were represented before the Court by Ms J. Gričnik, a lawyer practising in Žalec. 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 the 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. By a letter dated 19 April 2011, sent by registered post, the applicants representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 14 December 2010 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. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 28 April 2011. However, no response has been received. 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. Stephen Phillips   Ganna Yudkivska Deputy Registrar President