FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application nos. 60765/09 and 63509/09
by Blažo KRSTOVIĆ and Simo KUČINAR,
against Montenegro
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 5 July 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Lech Garlicki, President,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above applications lodged on 2 November 2009 and 23 November 2009, respectively,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant, Mr Blažo Krstović, is a Montenegrin national who was born in 1964 and lives in Podgorica. The second applicant, Mr Simo Kučinar, is a national of Bosnia and Herzegovina who was born in 1960 and lives in Ljubinje (Bosnia and Herzegovina). They are both represented before the Court by Mr B. Simović, a lawyer practising in Podgorica. The Montenegrin Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr Z. Pažin.
The applicants complained under Article 6 of the Convention about the length and the outcome of the domestic civil proceedings.
The complaint with regard to the length of the domestic proceedings was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on admissibility and merits. The observations were transmitted to the applicants’ representative, who was requested to submit his clients’ observations together with any claims for just satisfaction by 16 December 2010.
In a telephone conversation of 15 February 2011 the applicants’ legal representative informed the Registry that the Government’s observations sent to him by facsimile on 4 November 2010 were illegible and that he had not received the originals.
Finally, by a letter of 25 February 2011, sent by registered post, the Court exceptionally agreed to grant an extension of the original time-limit and the applicants’ legal representative was invited to comply with the previous request by 25 March 2011. He was also warned, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, that the Court might strike a case out of its list of cases where it concluded that the applicant did not intend to pursue the application. The applicants’ legal representative received this letter on 10 March 2011, but has not responded to date.
THE LAW
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicants may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue their applications, 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 examination of the applications to be continued.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the cases out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to join the applications;
Decides to strike the applications out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyLech Garlicki
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy