FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 1984/12
BENVILLE LIMITED, PODRUŽNICA ZA TRANSPORT, LJUBLJANA
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 17 February 2015 as a Committee composed of:
Helena Jäderblom, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Aleš Pejchal, judges,
and Milan Blaško, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 December 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant company, Benville Limited, Podružnica za transport, Ljubljana, was a foreign branch of a British corporation Benville Limited, Hertford (hereinafter “the parent company”). It had its registered seat in Ljubljana and was represented before the Court by Mr B. Rangus, a lawyer practising in Ljubljana.
The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Vran.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 25 January 2007 the applicant company requested from the Slovenian Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter “the Chamber”) a licence for the international road transport of goods.
On 23 February 2007 the Chamber rejected the applicant company’s request after having established that the applicant company was a foreign branch of a British corporation and, as such, did not possess legal personality.
The applicant company appealed against the Chamber’s decision with the Ministry of Transport.
On 16 April 2007 the Ministry of Transport dismissed the applicant company’s appeal.
The applicant company, acting through its specially authorised representative - the so-called procurator brought an administrative action against the State before the Administrative Court.
On 27 January 2009 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant company’s action.
On 13 March 2009 the applicant company, again acting through its procurator and represented by a lawyer, lodged an appeal on points of law before the Supreme Court.
On 16 September 2009 the Supreme Court, rejected its appeal on the ground that the procurator was not entitled to represent a legal entity in judicial proceedings, and neither was he entitled to give a power of attorney to a lawyer.
The applicant company lodged a constitutional complaint before the Constitutional Court.
On 14 June 2011 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant company’s complaint.
On 25 June 2014 the application was communicated to the respondent Government for observations.
On 17 September 2014 the respondent Government informed the Court that the applicant company had been dissolved and had been erased from the Registry of Companies.
On 22 September 2014 the Court requested the applicant company’s representative to comment the Governments information.
On 24 October 2014 the applicant company’s representative confirmed that both the applicant company and its parent company had been dissolved from the court and business registers both in Slovenia and in the United Kingdom. He proposed that the Court should strike the case out of its list of cases.
COMPLAINT
The applicant company complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that it had been denied access to the Supreme Court.
THE LAW
The Court observes that the application was brought in 2011 under Article 34 of the Convention by a private company, and that in 2013 that company, as well as its parent company, ceased to legally exist, without a legal successor. There is thus no company which could pursue the application and the former company’s representative is in agreement with the striking out of the case.
It notes that this may constitute an “other reason” for which “it is no longer justified to continue the examination of the application” within the meaning of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention.
It further finds no special circumstances relating to respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols which would, pursuant to Article 37 § 1 in fine, require the Court to continue the examination of the application (see, for instance, RF spol. S r.o. v. Slovakia (dec.), no. 9926/03, 20 October 2010, and, a contrario, OAO Neftyanaya Kompaniya Yukos v. Russia (dec.), no. 14902/04, § 441, 29 January 2009). Accordingly, the application should be struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
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 12 March 2015.
Milan BlaškoHelena Jäderblom
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy