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 } .s68C46B95 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center } .s3F59B822 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-transform:uppercase } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt }     SECOND SECTION DECISION Application no. 59049/11 Đorđe PETROVIĆ 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 30 August 2011, Having deliberated, decides as follows: FACTS AND PROCEDURE The applicant, Mr Đorđe Petrović, is a Serbian national, who was born in   1978 and lives in Požega. He was represented before the Court by Mr   M.   Krstić, a lawyer practising in Užice. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms V. Pavličić. The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the excessive length of criminal proceedings against him. The applicant’s complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations together with any claims for just satisfaction by 26   July   2016. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter. By letter dated 4 October 2016, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 26 July 2016 and that no extension of time had been requested. Nevertheless, he was invited to comply with the previous request by 1 November 2016. The applicant’s 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. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 14 October 2016. However, no response has been received to date. 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.   Done in English and notified in writing on 20 July 2017.   Hasan Bakırcı   Paul Lemmens Deputy Registrar   President