THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 38103/08
Vladimír MAJTAN
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 4 June 2013 as a Committee composed of:
Luis López Guerra, President,
Ján Šikuta,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Marialena Tsirli, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 1 August 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
FACTS AND PROCEDURE
The applicant, Mr Vladimír Majtan, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1962 and lives in Prievidza. He was represented before the Court by Mr M. Kováčik, a lawyer practising in Banská Bystrica.
The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by Ms M. Pirošíková, their Agent.
Relying on Articles 5 §§ 3 and 4 and 6 §§ 1 and 3 (c) of the Convention the applicant raised a number of complaints concerning his detention and trial on charges of setting up a criminal enterprise, tax fraud and corruption.
On 27 June 2012 the complaints under Article 5 §§ 3 and 4 of the Convention were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits.
The Government’s observations were then forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations and claims for just satisfaction, by 21 December 2012.
By way of a registered letter of 21 January 2013 addressed to his lawyer, the applicant was informed that the period for submission of his observations and claims had expired and that neither any observations nor a request for extension of the time-limit had been received. At the same time, the applicant’s attention was drawn to the provision of Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
Pursuant to information available on the Internet site of the post office of the destination country, the letter of 21 January 2013 was served on the addressee on 29 January 2013. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
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.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Marialena TsirliLuis López Guerra
Deputy RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy