FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 24542/04
by Rudolf FIALA
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 13 November 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrP. Lorenzen, President,
MrsS. Botoucharova,
MrK. Jungwiert,
MrR. Maruste,
MrJ. Borrego Borrego,
MrsR. Jaeger,
MrM. Villiger, judges,
and Mrs C. Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 June 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 and the observations in reply submitted by the applicant,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Rudolf Fiala, is a Czech national who was born in 1920 and lives in Chlum. The Czech Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1898 the applicant’s mother transferred the ownership in half of her house to Mr and Ms B. At the same time, an easement was established, giving her the right to use the road leading to her half of the house.
On an unspecified date, Mr and Ms K. became the owners of Mr and Ms B.’s property. They did not respect the road easement established in 1898.
On 3 October 1995 the applicant filed a civil action against them.
By a judgment of 29 January 2001 the Chrudim District Court (okresní soud) decided against the applicant.
On 29 August 2002 the Hradec Králové Regional Court (krajský soud) upheld this judgment.
On 10 January 2003 the applicant introduced an appeal on points of law (dovolání) before the Supreme Court (Nejvyšší soud) which, on 31 March 2004, quashed the lower courts’ judgments and returned the case to the District Court for further consideration.
It seems that the proceedings are still pending.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
By letter dated 9 June 2006 the Government’s complementary observations concerning the new domestic remedy with regard to the length of proceedings cases were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit any observations in reply and to clarify his position concerning the new domestic remedy by 24 July 2006.
By letter dated 28 September 2006, sent by registered post, the applicant was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 24 July 2006 and that no extension of time had been requested. He was exceptionally invited to inform the Court about his position in respect of the new remedy by 30 October 2006. The applicant’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 received this letter on 4 October 2006. However, no response has been received.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue his 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 discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 and 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.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy