CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 28 juin 2016

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s2EF17D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:2pt } .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 } .s5F897A7E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .s4B243ECC { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .sF3B96856 { width:11.87pt; display:inline-block } .s330D47D5 { width:214.44pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     THIRD SECTION DECISION Application no. 39656/15 Milan ŠEFC against Slovakia The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 28   June   2016 as a Committee composed of:   Helen Keller, President,   Johannes Silvis,   Alena Poláčková, judges, and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 3 August 2015, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Milan Šefc, is a Slovak national, who was born in   1955 and lives in Poprad. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková. The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of his civil proceedings. The applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government under the well-established case-law procedure. In a letter of 14 January 2016 the Court informed the applicant of the notification of the application to the respondent Government. At the same time, a friendly settlement proposal was made and the applicant was invited to take a position in respect of it by 10 March 2016. No reply from the applicant was received. By a letter dated 5 April 2016, sent by registered post to the applicant’s address as indicated in his application form, the applicant was asked again to submit the information specified above by 19 April 2016. On 20 April 2016 the postal services returned the letter to the Court indicating that it had not been delivered to the applicant on the ground that he was unknown at   the given address. The applicant has not informed the Court about any new address of his. 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 in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.   Done in English and notified in writing on 21 July 2016.   Fatoş Aracı   Helen Keller Deputy Registrar   President