FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 3788/02
by Viliam KOVÁCS
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 3 July 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
SirNicolas Bratza, President,
MrJ. Casadevall,
MrG. Bonello,
MrK. Traja,
MrS. Pavlovschi,
MrJ. Šikuta,
MrsP. Hirvelä, judges,
and Mrs. F. Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 25 October 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, Mr Viliam Kovács, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1966 and lives in Nové Zámky. He is represented before the Court by Mr L. Magyerka, a lawyer practising in Nové Zámky. The respondent Government were represented by their Agent, Ms A. Poláčková, who was subsequently succeeded in that function by Ms M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 18 May 2000 the applicant was arrested and subsequently remanded in detention on charges of conspiracy and fraud. He and some other individuals were suspected of having arranged for the purchase of a large quantity of flour which they later sold without the intention of paying the original seller.
On 8 January 2001 the Nitra Regional Prosecutor indicted the applicant to stand trial in the Regional Court on the above charges.
In the course of the proceedings the applicant unsuccessfully requested release on numerous occasions. He was finally released on 30 June 2003.
The applicant also unsuccessfully complained, on two occasions, to the Constitutional Court (Ústavný súd) of various issues including the length of his proceedings and detention.
On 1 July 2002 the applicant was found guilty as charged and sentenced to five years in prison. On 16 April 2003 the judgment was quashed on the applicant’s appeal and the case was remitted to the first-instance court for the taking of further evidence and re-examination. It is still pending.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the length and other aspects of his detention and trial were incompatible with Articles 5 and 6 of the Convention.
THE LAW
The Court observes that by a letter of 24 August 2006 the applicant’s lawyer was invited to reply, by 6 October 2006, to the observations of the Government on the above application and to submit any claims for just satisfaction.
By a registered letter of 25 April 2007 the Registrar of the Fourth Section informed the applicant, through his lawyer, that the period allowed for submission of his observations in reply and claims for just satisfaction had expired and that no extension of time had been requested.
The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention and he was expressly invited to inform the Court whether or not he wished to pursue the application. The applicant was also informed that a failure to respond might be interpreted as a failure to pursue an application within the meaning of Rule 44E of the Rules of Court and might lead to the application being struck out of the Court’s list of cases.
Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention provides that:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
Rule 44E of the Rules of Court provides that:
“In accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, if an applicant Contracting Party or an individual applicant fails to pursue the application, the Chamber may strike the application out of the Court’s list under Rule 43 of these Rules.”
On 14 May 2007 a postal delivery report (avis de réception) was returned to the Court indicating that the above registered letter had been received by the applicant’s lawyer on 3 May 2007.
The Court has received no reply to the above letters.
In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. The Court also considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols 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. The application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should also be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously.
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Fatoş AracıNicolas Bratza
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy