CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 4 juin 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s5BA5B7C7 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s662121A1 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; 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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sEC177689 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s967D43C6 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD5DF731 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7714A00D { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:36pt; text-align:justify } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s260B30F2 { width:16.02pt; display:inline-block } .sBF1D92B9 { width:173.61pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center }   THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 34840/08 Dušan PRIWITZER against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4   June   2013 as a Committee composed of:   Luis López Guerra, President,   Ján Šikuta,   Nona Tsotsoria, judges, and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 10 July 2008, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Dušan Priwitzer, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1975 and lives in Banská Bystrica. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by Ms M. Pirošíková, their Agent. Invoking Article 6 §§ 1, 2 and 3 of the Convention, the applicant appeared wishing to complain about the proceedings against him and his conviction on a charge of extortion by the judgment of the Banská Bystrica District Court of 27   April 2007, as upheld by the Banská Bystrica Regional Court on 21 June 2007. The applicant’s complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 2 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. Simultaneously, by letter of 21 September 2012, the applicant was invited to   appoint a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings before the Court and to submit, by 29 November 2012, a power of attorney to that effect. By a registered letter of 30 January 2013 the applicant was informed that the period for submission of the power of attorney had expired and that no power of attorney had been received. The applicant was invited to submit the power of attorney within a new time limit of 18 February 2013. At the same time, the applicant’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. By a registered letter of 28 March 2013 copies of the above-mentioned letter of 21 September 2012 and of the registered letter of 30 January 2013 were resent to the applicant at the other of his two known addresses and a   new time-limit for the submission of the power of attorney was set for 16   April 2013. On 15 February and 12 April 2013, respectively, the registered letters of 30 January and 28 March 2013 were returned to the Court by the postal services with the mention “addressee unknown” ( inconnu ). No response to any of the above letters has been received. THE LAW 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   Luis López Guerra   Deputy Registrar   President