FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15996/05
by Anna BEŇAČKOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 4 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mrs F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 April 2005,
Having regard to the decision to apply Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and examine the admissibility and merits of the case together,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Anna Beňačková, is a Slovak national who was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 14 October 1996 the applicant’s former husband filed an action with the Topoľčany District Court. He claimed that the applicant should return movable property to him. The case was transferred to the Bratislava I District Court for reasons of jurisdiction. The plaintiff’s wife was granted leave to join the proceedings in 1998.
On 20 October 2004 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava I District Court had violated the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time. No particular complexity of the case had been established and the applicant by her conduct had not significantly contributed to the length of the proceedings despite the fact that she had been unable to attend three hearings. The manner in which the District Court had proceeded with the case was incompatible with the applicant’s right in issue.
The Constitutional Court awarded SKK 70,000 (the equivalent of 1,752 euros at that time) to the applicant as just satisfaction. It ordered the District Court to avoid further delays in the proceedings and to reimburse the applicant’s costs in the constitutional proceedings.
A hearing before the District Court was scheduled for 23 November 2004. It had to be adjourned as the judge was ill.
The next hearing in the case was held on 9 December 2005.
On 23 February 2006 the plaintiffs withdrew the action.
On 14 June 2006 the applicant informed the District Court that she had no objection to the withdrawal of the action by the plaintiffs.
On 3 July 2006 the District Court discontinued the proceedings.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
By letter dated 14 June 2007 the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 26 July 2007.
By letter dated 26 September 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of her observations had expired on 26 July 2007 and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’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 postal services returned the letter to the Court with the indication that the addressee had not picked it up by 19 October 2007.
On 3 May 2005, upon registration of the application, the applicant had been informed that she should notify the Court of any change in her address.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue her 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention and to strike the case out the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy