THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18693/11
Vladimír FULMEK
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 10 June 2014 as a Committee composed of:
Dragoljub Popović, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Iulia Antoanella Motoc, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 18 March 2011,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Vladimír Fulmek, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1976 and lives in Poprad. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Radačovský, a lawyer practising in Košice.
The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 that the Ministry of Justice had failed to comply with a judgment in his favour.
The applicant’s complaints were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations. No reply was received to the Registry’s letter.
By letter dated 19 February 2014, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of his observations had expired on 22 November 2013 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.
As the delivery receipt has not been returned to the Court, a copy of the letter of 19 February 2014 was re-sent to the applicant’s representative with a request to inform the Court, by 25 April 2014, whether the applicant wishes to maintain his application. The applicant’s representative received this letter on 14 April 2014. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
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 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 TsirliDragoljub Popović
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy