FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 15750/04
by GRANIT AD
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 30 November 2010 as a Committee composed of:
Rait Maruste, President,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 April 2004,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Granit Ad, is a construction company incorporated in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It was represented before the Court by Mr M. Mihajlovski, a lawyer practising in Skopje. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The case concerned alleged inconsistency on the part of the Štip Court of Appeal, given its conflicting decisions on identical complaints about the expert reports, which could run contrary to the principle of legal certainty.
On 25 August 2009 the Court decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint under Article 6 of the Convention about the inconsistent domestic case-law.
On 21 December 2009 the Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaint. On 15 January 2010 the applicant was invited to submit its observations in reply before 26 February 2010. However, the Court notes that the applicant has failed to do so. Moreover, he failed to respond to a registered letter dated 15 April 2010, warning the applicant of the possibility that his case might be struck out of the Court’s list.
THE LAW
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application (see Limkoski and others v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (dec.), no. 27870/02, 2 February 2006). 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 this application to be continued. Accordingly, 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.
Stephen PhillipsRait Maruste
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy