THIRD SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 29632/06
Ivan MATUŠÍK
against Slovakia and Germany
The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 11 December 2012 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 9 October 2003,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Ivan Matušík, is a Slovak national, who was born in 1956 and lives in Bratislava and Kittsee (Austria).
The Slovak Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Ms M. Pirošíková.
Relying on Articles 6 § 1 and 13 of the Convention and 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant raised a number of complaints against Slovakia and Germany in respect of a decision of a Slovakian court to declare him bankrupt, the underlying proceedings, and related facts.
On 16 February 2011 the complaints against Slovakia were communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The applicant was invited to appoint a lawyer to represent him in the proceedings before the Court and to submit, by 29 March 2011, a power of attorney to that effect.
The Government’s observations were then forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations and claims for just satisfaction, by 12 August 2011. Upon the applicant’s request, this time‑limit was extended until 30 September 2011.
The applicant’s subsequent request that the proceedings be stayed for a period of six months was dismissed and he was reminded that he had failed to appoint a lawyer to represent him before the Court.
No observations, just-satisfaction claims and power of attorney have been submitted, the last communication from the applicant dating back to November 2011.
By a letter dated 20 September 2012, sent by registered post to all known addresses of the applicant, the applicant was requested to inform the Court, by 5 October 2012, with reference to Article 37 of the Convention, whether in the circumstances he wished to maintain his application.
Pursuant to advice of receipt (avis de réception), returned to the Court by the postal service, one copy of the letter of 20 September 2012 had been received, on 18 October 2012. 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