FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 45273/05
by Radojka BUDIJA
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 25 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Christos Rozakis, President,
Nina Vajić,
Khanlar Hajiyev,
Dean Spielmann,
Sverre Erik Jebens,
Giorgio Malinverni,
George Nicolaou, judges,
and André Wampach, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 17 October 2005,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Radojka Budija, is a Croatian national who was born in 1951 and lives in Nin. She is represented before the Court by Mr I. Begonja, a lawyer practising in Rijeka. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
The applicant and her family lived in a house situated in Škrljevo, Croatia. On an unspecified date the applicant's sister, D.B., brought a civil action in the Rijeka Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rijeci) against the applicant and her husband, Š.B., claiming her ownership of the house and seeking the defendants' eviction.
The first instance judgment of 20 March 2003, granting the claim, was upheld by the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) on 14 January 2004.
On 10 May 2004 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint about the outcome of the proceedings.
Meanwhile, upon a request lodged by the applicant's sister, on 26 June 2004 the Rijeka Municipal Court issued an eviction order against the applicant and her husband.
On 24 March 2005 the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) dismissed the applicant's complaint of 10 May 2004.
The eviction order was carried out on 11 January 2006. The applicant alleges that no list of her movable possessions was made and that the bailiff officer did not ensure their proper storage.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the outcome of the civil proceedings instituted against her.
She also complained that she had been evicted from the house she had occupied for many years and which had been her home.
She further complained that in the course of eviction the court bailiff in charge had failed to protect her movable from disappearing.
THE LAW
By letter dated 3 March 2008 the Government's observations were sent to the applicant's representative, who was requested to submit any observations together with any claims for just satisfaction in reply by 14 April 2008.
By letter dated 19 June 2008, sent by registered post, the applicant's representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the applicant's observations had expired on 14 April 2008 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 applicant's representative received this letter on 27 June 2008. However, no response has been received.
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 strike the case out of the list and discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
André WampachChristos Rozakis
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy