THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 31338/06
by Ivana DIJAK
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on
25 January 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Elisabet Fura, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Ineta Ziemele, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 21 July 2006,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The application was lodged by Ms Ivana Dijak, a Slovenian national who was born in 1943 and lived in Ljutomer. She was represented before the Court by Mr D. Rituper, a lawyer practising in Murska Sobota. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent. On 1 January 2007 the applicant died.
The applicant was a party to civil proceedings which were terminated before 1 January 2007, that is, before the 2006 Act on the Protection of the Right to a Trial without Undue Delay (“the 2006 Act”) became operational.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the excessive length of civil proceedings and under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in that regard.
THE LAW
On 17 February 2009 the Government had been given notice of the application under Article 54 § 2(a) of the Rules of Court. The Government was asked to provide information as to whether section 25 of the 2006 Act applied in respect of the present case.
On 29 April 2009 the respondent Government informed the Court that section 25 of the 2006 Act was not applicable since the applicant had died on 1 January 2007. In this connection, the Government stated that under domestic law non-pecuniary claims could not be inherited if the decision awarding the non-pecuniary damages had not yet become final.
The Government’s submissions were forwarded to the applicant’s representative, who was invited to inform the Court whether any of the late applicant’s heirs wished to pursue the proceedings before the Court. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 3 September 2009, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was again invited to submit the information requested by the Registry. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 7 September 2009. However, no response has been received.
Having regard to the foregoing, the Court considers that it is no longer justified to continue with the examination of the application and that it should be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (c). 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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Marialena TsirliElisabet Fura
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy