THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18664/02
by Igor MAJER
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 5 July 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC. Bîrsan, President,
MrB.M. Zupančič,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MrsA. Gyulumyan,
MrDavid Thór Björgvinsson,
MrsI. Ziemele,
MrsI. Berro-Lefèvre, judges,
and Mr S. Quesada, Section Registrar
Having regard to the above application lodged on 29 April 2002,
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 Igor Majer, is a Slovenian national who was born in 1970 and lives in Podplat. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr L. Bembič, State Attorney-General.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 27 September 1993 the police officer D.M. accidentally shot the applicant, who was under arrest and handcuffed, in his leg. As a result of this event, three sets of proceedings were instituted.
The Convention entered into force in respect of Slovenia on 28 June 1994.
The criminal proceedings against the applicant
On 13 November 1995 a criminal investigation was instituted against the applicant in relation to the events of 27 September 1993.
On 7 April 1997 the Public Prosecutor indicted the applicant for the criminal offence of “obstructing an officer in the course of his duties”.
Hearings were held on 11 January, 26 May, 19 June, 11 July and 20 October 2000.
On 20 October 2000 the Celje District Court (Okrožno sodišče v Celju) acquitted the applicant. The judgment became final on the same day.
The criminal proceedings against the police officer
On 7 April 1997 the Public Prosecutor indicted also the police officer D.M. for causing a grave injury to the applicant.
On 11 January 2000 the Public Prosecutor withdrew the indictment against the police officer.
The applicant was subsequently informed about the possibility to take over the prosecution in the capacity of a “subsidiary prosecutor” (subsidiarni tožilec).
Since the applicant had not taken over the prosecution in the prescribed time-limit, the Celje District Court discontinued the criminal proceedings on 22 May 2000. This decision became final on 28 July 2000.
The civil proceedings against the Ministry of Interior
On 2 February 1996 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against the Ministry of Interior (Ministrstvo za notranje zadeve) in the Celje District Court seeking damages for the injuries sustained as a result of the incident of 27 September 1993.
During the proceedings the court appointed a medical expert who prepared two reports.
Between 3 February 1997 and 7 September 2001 the applicant submitted seven written submissions.
Hearings were held on 13 December 2000, 18 April 2001 and 12 September 2001.
At the last hearing, the court delivered a judgment, upholding the applicant’s claim in part.
On 16 January 2002 the applicant appealed to the Celje Higher Court (Višje sodišče v Celju). The Ministry of Interior also appealed.
On 30 April 2003 the court allowed the applicant’s appeal in part and increased the damages awarded.
On 11 May 2005, further to the applicant’s appeal on points of law, the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) increased the damages awarded to him.
The judgment was served on the applicant on 15 July 2005.
COMPLAINTS
1. The applicant complained that he had been unlawfully shot in his leg by the police officer in 1993. He further alleged that the respective officer had not been held accountable for the alleged ill-treatment (in substance, Article 3 of the Convention).
2. Moreover, the applicant complained that his right to a fair trial had been violated by an excessive length of the civil and criminal proceedings instituted by him (Article 6 of the Convention). In substance, he also complained under Article 13 of the Convention about the lack of an effective domestic remedy in respect of the excessive length of the proceedings.
THE LAW
On 23 October 2006 the part of the application concerning the alleged excessive length of the proceedings was communicated to the respondent Government.
On 15 January 2007 the Government’s observations on the admissibility and merits of the application were received and the applicant was invited to submit his written observations in reply by 9 March 2007.
On 12 February 2007 the English version of the Government’s observations was received. The time-limit for the submission of the applicant’s observations remained unaffected.
As the applicant’s observations had not been received by 9 March 2007 and no extension of time had been requested, on 19 March 2007 the applicant was advised by registered mail that the failure to submit his observations might result in the strike-out of his application. In order to facilitate his comprehension, a copy of the Slovenian translation of the letter was enclosed.
As it appears from the acknowledgement-of-receipt card countersigned by the applicant, the letter was received on 22 March 2007.
The applicant has not replied.
The Court recalls Article 37 of the Convention which, in the relevant part, reads as follows:
“1. 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.”
The Court notes that the applicant was advised that he was to submit written observations in reply to those submitted by the Government. He subsequently received a reminder thereof. No response has been received to date. The Court infers therefrom that the applicant does not intend to pursue his application. Furthermore, it 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.
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Santiago QuesadaCorneliu Bîrsan
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy