SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 365/06
by Károly AMBRUS
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 December 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
András Sajó,
Kristina Pardalos, judges,
and Françoise Elens-Passos, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 15 December 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Mr Károly Ambrus, a Hungarian national who was born in 1948 and lived in Vonyarcvashegy. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Public Administration and Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length and the alleged unfairness of civil proceedings to which he was a party.
The applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the litigation was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits on 11 January 2010. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 27 September 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. His 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.
On 14 October 2010 this letter was returned by the Hungarian Post with the note that the applicant had died. No successor has contacted the Court.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application, within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) 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.
Françoise Elens-PassosDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy