SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 65190/01
by CS AUTOLADA, S.R.O.
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 7 June 2005 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrR. Türmen,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 20 December 2000,
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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having regard to the letter of the applicant of 26 April 2005,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, CS Autolada, spol. s r.o., is a limited liability company with its registered office in Prague. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
I. Proceedings against Autogamma, s.r.o.
On 11 November 1999 the Brno Regional Court (krajský soud), upon the applicant's request of 21 May 1998, issued a payment order (platební rozkaz) against a private company, Autogamma, s.r.o.
On 18 November 1999 the defendant appealed.
On 4 September 2001 the Regional Court partly discontinued the proceedings. On 13 January 2003 it granted the remainder of the applicant's action. On 22 February 2003 this judgment became effective.
II. Proceedings against Archa plus, s.r.o.
On 27 February 1997 the Ostrava Regional Court (krajský soud), upon the applicant's request of 18 May 1996, issued a payment order (platební rozkaz) against a private company Archa plus, s.r.o.
On 23 April 1997 the Regional Court quashed the payment order, as it had not been duly delivered to the defendant. On 15 May 1997 this decision became effective.
On 16 May 2001 the Regional Court granted the applicant's action. On 30 June 2001 this decision became effective.
COMPLAINT
The applicant originally complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 26 April 2005 the applicant informed the Court that it did not wish to pursue the application.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 examination of the application to be continued. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy