CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 13 septembre 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 } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5830ECD9 { width:0.2pt; display:inline-block } .sCA6C4ED6 { width:194.76pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 6038/11 BRODOGRADILIŠTE KRALJEVICA D.D. against Slovenia The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 13   September 2016 as a Committee composed of:   Nona Tsotsoria, President,   Krzysztof Wojtyczek,   Marko Bošnjak, judges, and Andrea Tamietti, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 January 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE 1.     The applicant company, Brodogradilište Kraljevica d.d., is a limited company under Croatian law whose registered office is in Kraljevica. It was represented before the Court by Mr A. Grilc, a lawyer practising in Krško. 2.     The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms B. Jovin Hrastnik. The Croatian Government, who had made use of their right to intervene under Article 36 of the Convention, were represented by their Agent, Ms Š. Stažnik. 3.     The applicant company complained under Articles 6 § 1 and Article   13 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention regarding a refusal to recognise and enforce a foreign arbitral award. 4.     On 11 June 2013 the Court decided to give notice to the Government of the applicant company’s complaints as detailed above. On 30   September   2013 the Government submitted to the Registry their observations on the admissibility and merits of the application. These were forwarded on 3   October   2013 to the applicant company, who was invited to submit observations in reply by 14   November   2013. 5.     On 13   November   2015 the applicant company’s representative informed the Court that the applicant company wanted to withdraw the application. THE LAW 6.     In the light of the foregoing, and 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 6 October 2016.   Andrea Tamietti   Nona Tsotsoria Deputy Registrar   President