CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 16 mars 2017

.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 } .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 } .s7E985A65 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; font-size:1pt } .sF7A4323 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:left } .s5A29A8C7 { width:12.53pt; display:inline-block } .sC6271ACD { width:186.41pt; display:inline-block } .s7602FED2 { width:18.21pt; display:inline-block } .sC1AC44A4 { width:228.11pt; display:inline-block }     FOURTH SECTION DECISION Application no. 24126/11 Mihály NEUBRAND against Hungary The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16   March   2017 as a Committee composed of:   Vincent A. De Gaetano, President,   Egidijus Kūris,   Gabriele Kucsko-Stadlmayer, judges, and Karen Reid, Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 12 April 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Mihály Neubrand, was born in 1952. The applicant’s complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention concerning the excessive length of civil proceedings was communicated to the Hungarian Government (“the Government”). On 3 November 2016 the registered mail that was sent to the applicant by the Court was returned to the Registry, containing the postal service provider’s note that the delivery of the mail had been impossible because the addressee had died. No heirs have presented themselves to pursue the procedure. THE LAW In the light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that the applicant’s heirs, if any, do not wish to pursue the application within the meaning of Article   37   §   1   (a) of the Convention. 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 April 2017.   Karen Reid   Vincent A. De Gaetano   Registrar   President