CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 12 novembre 2013

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s8229ABDD { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s9793A85B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt } .sCB9E0544 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sD3B63DAD { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sA5C4F8A9 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s5E698226 { width:12.01pt; display:inline-block } .s3480A186 { width:173.6pt; display:inline-block } .s64406319 { width:11.68pt; display:inline-block } .s7B0354FA { width:193.28pt; display:inline-block }   FIRST SECTION DECISION Application no. 77281/11 Elizabeta MIHIĆ against Croatia The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 12   November 2013 as a Committee composed of:   Elisabeth Steiner, President,   Linos-Alexandre Sicilianos,   Ksenija Turković, judges, and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 November 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant, Ms Elizabeta Mihić, is a Croatian national, who was born in 1914 and lived in Rijeka. She was represented before the Court by Ms J. Barić, an advocate practising in Rijeka. 2.     The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3.     The applicant complained under Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention that she had not had access to court nor an effective remedy to contest the calculation of compensation for the pension debt, that is, for the loss incurred as the result of the State’s failure to fulfil its statutory obligation to adjust her pension in line with the increase in wages in the period between 1 September 1993 and 31   December 1998. 4.     On 13 November 2012 the application was communicated to the Government. 5.     On 8 March 2013 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application in which they, inter alia , informed the Registry that the applicant had died on 16   February 2012. 6.     By letter of 19 March 2013 the applicant’s representative informed the Registry that the applicant’s heir wanted to withdraw the application since he had already received a partial compensation for the pension debt owed to the applicant and would receive the full compensation by the end of 2013. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant’s heir does not wish to pursue the application within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 of the Convention. In the absence of any special circumstances regarding respect for the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols, the Court, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, considers that it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application. Accordingly, the case should be struck out of the list. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.   André Wampach   Elisabeth Steiner   Deputy Registrar   President