SECOND SECTION
FINAL DECISION
Application no. 22857/04
by Péter MÓRA
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on
11 December 2007 as a Chamber composed of:
MrsF. Tulkens, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrV. Zagrebelsky,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges,
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 2 April 2004,
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 Péter Móra, is a Hungarian national who was born in 1945 and lives in Budapest. He is represented before the Court by Mr P. Tőzsér, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mr L. Höltzl, Agent, Ministry of Justice and Law Enforcement.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
Following an inheritance dispute between 1982 and 1994, in May 1997 the applicant filed an action seeking his statutory share of the estate.
Between 15 July 1997 and 11 February 2002, the Buda Central District Court held numerous hearings. On that latter date, it found for the applicant.
On appeal, the Budapest Regional Court held several hearings. On 24 September 2003 it upheld in essence the first-instance decision. The final decision was received at the District Court with a view to its despatch to the applicant on 1 October 2003.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the proceedings had lasted an unreasonably long time.
PROCEDURE
On 12 October 2006 the Court decided to invite the Government to submit observations on the admissibility and merits of the applicant’s complaint.
On 16 January 2007 the Government submitted their observations.
By a letter dated 31 January 2007, the Government’s observations were sent to the applicant, who was requested to submit his observations in reply by 14 March 2007, together with his claims for just satisfaction.
By letter dated 7 August 2007, sent by registered post, the applicant’s representative was reminded that the period allowed for the submission of his observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. However, no response to the Court’s letters has been received.
THE LAW
The Court notes that on 7 August 2007 the applicant’s representative was reminded that the period allowed for submission of written observations had expired and he was warned of the possibility that the case might be struck out of the Court’s list. The representative did not reply to the Court.
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.
Accordingly, the application of Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should be discontinued.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy