DECISION
Application no. 39923/98
by Petar PANČIĆ
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (First Section) sitting on 16 March 1999 as a Chamber composed of
MrsE. Palm, President,
MrL. Ferrari Bravo,
MrGaukur Jörundsson,
MrR. Türmen,
MrB. Zupančič,
MrT. Pantiru,
MrR. Maruste, Judges,
withMrM. O’Boyle, Section Registrar;
Having regard to Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 24 November 1997 by Petar PANČIĆ against Slovenia and registered on 17 February 1998 under file no. 39923/98;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 49 of the Rules of Court;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government on 23 October 1998 and the applicant’s letters dated 2 December 1998 and 28 January 1999;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Slovenian national, born in 1939 and living in Ljubljana.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 January 1992 the applicant applied for an advance on payment of his military pension under Decree on the Advance on Payment of Military Pensions (Official Gazette no. 4/92 of 25 January 1992).
On 31 March 1992 the Pension and Invalidity Insurance Fund (Skupnost pokojninskega in invalidskega zavarovanja) found that the applicant had no right to such an advance as he was considered to have taken an active part in the aggression on Slovenia. The applicant applied for a judicial review of this decision.
On 19 March 1993 the Social Court in Ljubljana (Sodišče združenega dela pokojninskega in invalidskega zavarovanja) dismissed the action. On 2 June 1994 the Higher Labour and Social Court (Višje delovno in socialno sodišče) in Ljubljana upheld the first instance judgment. On 19 September 1995 the Supreme Court (Vrhovno sodišče) dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law.
On 11 December 1995 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavno sodišče) in which he complained about a violation of his constitutional rights to equal treatment, to property, social security and to human dignity and personal security. On 8 December 1996 the applicant complained to the Constitutional Court that the proceedings lasted unreasonably long.
On 14 October 1998 the Constitutional Court quashed the earlier administrative and judicial decisions and found that the applicant was entitled to receive an advance on his military pension under the 1992 Decree on the Advance on Payment of Military Pensions.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained that the courts failed to establish the facts of his case correctly, that he was deprived of his pension, and that the proceedings before the Constitutional Court lasted unreasonably long. He invoked Articles 6 and 7 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT
The application was introduced before the European Commission of Human Rights on 24 November 1997 and registered on 17 February 1998.
On 1 July 1998 the Commission decided to communicate the applicant’s complaint concerning the length of the proceedings before the Constitutional Court to the respondent Government and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible.
The Government’s written observations were submitted on 23 October 1998.
On 1 November 1998, by operation of Article 5 § 2 of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention, the case fell to be examined by the Court in accordance with the provisions of that Protocol.
In his letters of 2 December 1998 and 28 January 1999 respectively the applicant informed the Court, with reference to the Constitutional Court’s decision of 14 October 1998, that he did not wish to pursue his application.
THE LAW
Having regard to the applicant’s above letters of 2 December 1998 and of 28 January 1999 as well as to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the petition. 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 which require the continuation of the examination of the application.
For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Michael O’BoyleElisabeth Palm
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy