SECOND SECTION
DECISION
AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF
Application no. 46809/06
by Vladeta MIRKOV
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 2 March 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Françoise Tulkens, President,
Ireneu Cabral Barreto,
Vladimiro Zagrebelsky,
Danutė Jočienė,
Dragoljub Popović,
András Sajó,
Nona Tsotsoria, judges,
and Sally Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 7 November 2006,
Having regard to the applicant's letter of 6 May 2009,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Vladeta Mirkov, is a Serbian national who was born in 1955 and lives in Belgrade. The Serbian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr S. Carić.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On an unspecified date in 2004 the applicant initiated administrative proceedings, requesting the grant of a pension.
On 11 August 2004 this request was rejected by a decision of the Belgrade branch of the State Pension and Disability Fund (Republički fond za penzijsko i invalidsko osiguranje zaposlenih; hereinafter the Fund).
Following three remittals, on 27 July 2007 and 26 November 2007 the Directorate of the Fund and the District Court in Belgrade upheld the Fund's decision.
On 8 January 2008 the applicant filed an appeal on points of law (zahtev za vanredno preispitivanje sudske odluke) to the Supreme Court, where the case appears to be still pending.
COMPLAINTS
Under Article 8 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, the applicant complained that his right to work, as well as his right to a pension, have been violated. He also complained about not yet being granted a pension.
THE LAW
The application had been communicated to the Government under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, regarding the procedural delay in the applicant's proceedings regarding his request for a pension.
On 6 May 2009 the Registry received a letter from the applicant in which he stated that he had no interest in pursuing his complaint of length of proceedings.
The Court considers that, in these circumstances, the applicant may be regarded as no longer wishing to pursue this matter, as understood by Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention. Thus, 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 would require its continued examination.
As to the other complaints raised by the applicant, insofar as they are compatible with the Convention, the Court notes that the impugned proceedings appear to be still pending and are, as such, inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike out the complaint under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention;
Declares the remainder of the application inadmissible.
Sally DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy