FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 35042/06
by Namik BEĐETI
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 11 October 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ganna Yudkivska, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 23 August 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Namik Beđeti, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Ptuj. He is represented before the Court by Mr M. Pešić, a lawyer practising in Ptuj. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs N. Pintar Gosenca, State Attorney.
Under Article 6 of the Convention the applicant complained that the proceedings against him had been unfair, in particular that the court had not allowed him time to prepare his defence in response to the changes to the indictment which the prosecution had made at the last hearing.
The applicant’s complaint concerning the changes made to the indictment was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to submit observations on behalf of the applicant. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 9 May 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the observations had expired on 8 March 2011, and that no extension of time had been requested. 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 letter returned undelivered with a note “unclaimed”.
By letter dated 4 July 2011, sent by registered post, the applicant was informed of his representative’s failure to collect the letter sent to him by the Court. His attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court’s letter returned undelivered with an indication that the recipient had moved to a new address. The applicant, however, has not informed the Court of his change of address, as required under Rule 47 § 6 of the Rules of Court.
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.
Stephen PhillipsGanna Yudkivska
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy