SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42368/04
by Balázs CSIBI
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
2 October 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrM. Ugrekhelidze,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 27 October 2004,
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 on 8 May 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Balázs Csibi, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1938 and lives in Ajka. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 7 April 1997 the applicant’s ex-wife brought an action against him with a view to dividing their matrimonial property. Between 19 March 1998 and 21 May 2004, the Ajka District Court held several hearings and obtained the opinion of three experts. On the latter date it gave judgment. On 2 September 2004 it rectified this decision. On 28 February 2006 the Veszprém County Regional Court amended the first-instance decision.
Meanwhile, on 8 February 2006 the President of the Second Section decided under Rule 54 § 2 (b) of the Rules of Court that notice of the application should be given to the Government of Hungary and that the Government should be invited to submit written observations on the admissibility and merits of the case.
On 11 July 2006 the Registry forwarded the Government’s observations on the application to the applicant, inviting him to submit by 20 September 2006 his written observations in reply, together with his claims for just satisfaction.
In the absence of a reply, a warning was sent to the applicant by registered post on 6 February 2007. However, no response has been received by the Court from the applicant to that correspondence.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
The Court observes that the applicant did not reply to the Registry’s letter of 11 July 2006 inviting him to submit his written observations in reply to those of the Government. Nor did he reply to an additional warning posted on 6 February 2007. In these circumstances, the Court is satisfied that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. It follows that it should be struck out of the list of cases under Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. The Court finds no public policy reasons to justify the continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention). Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy