CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;ADMISSIBILITYCOM;ENG — 27 juin 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 } .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 } .s5362FFEB { width:4.87pt; display:inline-block } .s3E3166BC { width:200.1pt; display:inline-block } .sA2E62387 { width:204.97pt; display:inline-block }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 13822/12 Pavle DARMANOVIĆ and Vujica DARMANOVIĆ against Montenegro The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 27   June 2017 as a Committee composed of:   Paul Lemmens, President,   Nebojša Vučinić,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström, judges, and Hasan Bakırcı, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 March 2012, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicants, Mr Pavle Darmanović and Mr Vujica Darmanović, are Montenegrin nationals, who were born in 1937 and 1948 respectively and live in Podgorica. They were both represented before the Court by Mr   B.   Mitrić, a lawyer practising in Podgorica. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Pavličić. The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length of civil proceedings concerning a property matter. The applicants’ complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.   The observations were forwarded to the applicants, who were invited to submit their own observations together with any claims for just satisfaction by 27   January 2016. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 20 May 2016, sent by registered post, the applicants’ representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of their observations had expired on 27 January 2016 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicants’ representative’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. He was invited to submit any observations the applicants wished to make together with their claims for just satisfaction by 17 June 2016. The applicants’ representative received this letter on 30 May 2016. However, no   response has been received to date. THE LAW The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 20 July 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President