FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 66832/01
by Anna JANKOVIČOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 16 May 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta, judges,
and Mr M. O’Boyle, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 22 February 2001,
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,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mrs Anna Jankovičová, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1942 and lives in Bratislava. The Slovakian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Poláčková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1989 the applicant started running a small business in premises situated in a block of flats. Later the applicant started having conflicts with the owners of flats in the building who considered that the rent payable by the applicant should be increased. On 17 December 1990 several persons threatened the applicant and insisted that she should move her business from the premises. On 10 April 1991 all her equipment was removed from the premises to an unknown place.
On 21 June 1991 the applicant sued nine individuals before the Bratislava II District Court. She claimed that the defendants had prevented her from running her business, that her property should be returned to her and that she should be compensated for damage.
On 17 July 1991 the applicant filed an action concerning the transfer of ownership in respect of the business premises.
On 14 May 1992 the District Court stayed the proceedings pending the determination of the applicant’s action of 17 July 1991. The District Court dismissed the action of 17 July 1991 on 6 July 1992.
On 17 January 1994 the District Court discontinued the proceedings on the applicant’s claims that she should be allowed to use the premises and on the defendants’ counter-claim.
As regards the remainder of the action of 21 June 1991, the Bratislava II District Court issued an interim judgment on 17 January 1994. It stated that the applicant’s claim for damages was justified and that the amount of compensation due to the applicant would be determined in a final judgment.
On 9 March 1993 the defendants appealed. On 12 July 1994 the Bratislava City Court quashed the interim judgment.
On 21 April 1995 the applicant specified, at the court’s request, which evidence she proposed to be taken.
On 3 May 1995 the District Court appointed an expert with a view to establishing the relevant facts. The expert opinion was submitted to the court on 4 October 1995.
On 4 January 1996 the court asked the applicant for further information. The applicant submitted the information on 12 February 1996. On 2 February 1996 she entered several reservations to the expert’s conclusions.
On 23 April 1996 the court again appointed an expert with a view to obtaining supplementary information. The opinion was submitted on 9 July 1996. The District Court determined the expert’s fee on 6 May 1998.
On 22 September 1998 the applicant withdrew the action in respect of one of the defendants who had died.
After having held several hearing, the Bratislava II District Court dismissed the applicant’s action on 27 April 1999. On 30 June 1999 the applicant appealed. On 19 July 1997 she specified the subject-matter of her appeal at the court’s request. On 23 March 2000 the Bratislava Regional Court quashed the first instance judgment. The appellate court instructed the District Court to take further evidence and expressed its view on the legal assessment of the case. The file was returned to the Bratislava II District Court on 22 August 2000.
There was a change in judges on 26 October 2001.
On 11 November 2003 the District Court, after having taken further evidence, gave a judgment ordering the defendants to pay a sum of money to the applicant. The applicant did not attend as the summons could not be served on her. Similarly, the judgment sent to the applicant was returned to the court as being undeliverable at the applicant’s address.
On 16 January 2004 the defendants appealed.
In August 2004 and October 2004 the applicant made written submissions to the court. On 8 November 2004 she appealed against the first instance judgment.
On 19 August 2005 the competent authority confirmed that the applicant had still registered her permanent address at the place which she had indicated to the court.
In a submission of 20 August 2005 the police informed the District Court that they had been unable to serve two documents on the applicant as they had not reached her at her permanent address. The neighbour had been unable to indicate where the applicant was staying.
On 27 October 2005 the applicant requested the court of appeal to hold a hearing in the case. She indicated no change of address in her letter.
The proceedings are pending.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained under Articles 3, 5, 8 and 10 of the Convention that several individuals had prevented her from running her business and that the Slovakian authorities had failed to protect her.
2. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention in that the courts dealing with her case had failed to establish all relevant facts and that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time.
3. Under Article 14 of the Convention the applicant complained that she had been discriminated against on the ground of her sex, age, religion, social origin and property.
4. The applicant alleged a violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 in that she was unable to recover her property and to obtain compensation for damage which she had suffered.
5. With reference to the facts of the case the applicant also alleged a violation of Articles 13 and 17 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The Court observes that by a letter of 28 January 2006 the applicant was invited to reply, by 14 March 2006, to the observations of the Government on the above application and to submit any claims for just satisfaction.
The post office returned the envelope to the Registry, on 16 March 2006, with the indication that the addressee had not picked it up.
By a registered letter of 21 March 2006 the Registrar of the Fourth Section informed the applicant of the above fact and inquired whether there had been a change in her address.
The envelope was returned to the Registry, unopened, on 19 April 2006. The post office’s remarks on it indicate that the applicant had not been reached at her address on 27 March 2006. A notice was left for her inviting her to pick the mail up at the post office. As the applicant failed to do so, the postal authority returned the envelope to the sender on 15 April 2006.
In the light of the above, and noting that in a letter dated 14 March 2001 the applicant was invited to inform it of any change in her address, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application. The Court also considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention does not require it to continue the examination of the case. The application should therefore be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to discontinue the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention.
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Michael O’BoyleNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy