FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 21759/06
by Milan LATTA
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 23 September 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Nicolas Bratza, President,
Giovanni Bonello,
David Thór Björgvinsson,
Ján Šikuta,
Päivi Hirvelä,
Ledi Bianku,
Nebojša Vučinić, judges,
and Lawrence Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 16 May 2006,
Having regard to the letter submitted by the applicant on 16 July 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Milan Latta, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1947 and lives in Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs M. Pirošíková.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicant, may be summarised as follows.
1. Proceedings concerning distribution of matrimonial property
On 11 April 1996 the applicant filed an action for distribution of matrimonial property with the Bratislava - vidiek District Court (whose caseload was later transferred to the Bratislava III District Court).
On 14 August 2006 the President of the Bratislava III District Court informed the applicant that his complaint about unjustified delays was justified.
In July 2008 the applicant informed the Court that the proceedings were pending before the Bratislava III District Court.
2. Constitutional proceedings
On 6 July 2005 the Constitutional Court found that the Bratislava III District Court had violated the applicant's right under Article 48 § 2 of the Constitution to a hearing without unjustified delay.
The Constitutional Court held that the duration of the proceedings was not imputable to the factual complexity of the case and that the applicant's conduct had not contributed to their length. Delays imputable to the district court had exceeded 4 years and 7 months.
The Constitutional Court awarded the applicant SKK 50,000 (the equivalent of 1,306 euros at that time) as just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. It ordered the Bratislava III District Court to reimburse the applicant's legal costs and to avoid any further delay in the proceedings.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that his right to a hearing by an “independent and impartial tribunal” had been infringed as the proceedings had been excessively lengthy.
THE LAW
By letter dated 30 June 2008 the Government forwarded to the Court a letter from the applicant's lawyer (who represented him in the domestic proceedings) informing them that the applicant did not intend to pursue his application before the Court. Consequently, the Government suggested that the Court should strike the application out of the list of cases, in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
Since the applicant had not authorised the above lawyer to represent him in the proceedings before the Court, by letter dated 4 July 2008 the Registry of the Court requested the applicant to confirm that he no longer intended to pursue the application, as indicated in the letter submitted by the Government.
By letter dated 16 July 2008 the applicant informed the Court that he did not wish to pursue his application, given that the Bratislava III District Court was expected to determine the merits of his case shortly.
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.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Lawrence EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy