FIRST SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 27667/02
by Dragica MARASOVIĆ
against Croatia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section), sitting on 27 September 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrC.L. Rozakis, President,
MrL. Loucaides,
MrsN. Vajić,
MrK. Hajiyev,
MrD. Spielmann,
MrS.E. Jebens,
MrG. Malinverni, judges,
and Mr S. Nielsen, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 5 June 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, Mrs Dragica Marasović, is a Croatian national who was born in 1940 and lives in Split. She was represented before the Court by Mr Z. Mišurac, a lawyer practising in Split. The Croatian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs Š. Stažnik.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 25 September 1984 the Split Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Splitu) gave judgment in the applicant’s favour ordering a certain M.K. to pay her some money. Following the applicant’s request, an enforcement order was issued on 6 November 1984. However, the judgment of 25 September 1984 was annulled and in the fresh proceeding a new judgment was adopted on 28 April 1989. No request for the enforcement of that judgment has been lodged.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the enforcement proceedings.
THE LAW
The Court recalls that notice of the application was given to the Government on 29 November 2006. The Government submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaint on 21 February 2007. The applicant, who was represented by a lawyer, has failed to submit observations in reply. Moreover, she has failed to respond to the communications from the Court, the last of which was a registered letter dated 8 June 2007 warning the applicant of the possibility that her case might be struck out of the Court’s list if she failed to respond.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 further examination of this case. Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention to the case should be discontinued and the application struck off the list of cases.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Søren NielsenChristos Rozakis
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy