FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 33093/04
by Giovani Ivan PETRONIO
against Slovenia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 November 2011 as a Committee composed of:
Ann Power-Forde, President,
Boštjan M. Zupančič,
Angelika Nußberger, judges,
and Stephen Phillips, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 26 July 2004,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Giovani Ivan Petronio, was an Italian national who was born in 1905 and lived in Ronchi Dei Legionari. He was represented before the Court by Mr E. Dokič, a lawyer practising in Piran. The applicant died in the course of the proceedings before the Court. The Slovenian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr Lucijan Bembič, State Attorney General.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
In 1970, after his father’s death, the applicant and his sister inherited the right to use plots of lands which were subject to nationalisation but remained in their possession. In 1971 the land was transferred into the ownership of the hotel Hoteli Bernadin, allegedly without informing the applicant.
On 21 November 1997 the applicant started proceedings before the Piran Local Court against Hoteli Bernardin and the Municipality of Piran, requesting the recognition of his property right and that the transfer of property be declared null and void.
On 3 April 2001 the Piran Local Court rejected his request. He filed an appeal.
On 12 March 2002 the Koper Higher Court rejected the appeal.
On 13 July 2004 the Constitutional Court rejected his constitutional complaint as a fourth-instance case.
On 12 June 2011 the applicant’s representative informed the Court that the applicant had died.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the civil proceedings had been excessively long. He also complained that he did not have an effective domestic remedy in this regard (Article 13 of the Convention).
Under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 the applicant further complained about the taking of property and discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention because he was an Italian citizen.
THE LAW
The Court notes that in a number of cases in which an applicant died in the course of the proceedings, it has taken into account the statements of the applicant’s heirs or of close family members expressing the wish to pursue the proceedings before the Court (see, among other authorities, Deweer v. Belgium, judgment of 27 February 1980, Series A no. 35, pp. 19-20, § 37; Vocaturo v. Italy, judgment of 24 May 1991, Series A no. 206-C, p. 29, § 2; Pandolfelli and Palumbo v. Italy, judgment of 27 February 1992, Series A no. 231-B, p. 16, § 2; Raimondo v. Italy, judgment of 22 February 1994, Series A no. 281-A, p. 8, § 2; Malhous v. the Czech Republic (dec.), no. 33071/96, ECHR 2000-XII; and Dalban v. Romania [GC], no. 28114/95, § 39, ECHR 1999-VI). However, there is no sufficient evidence to show that the same situation obtains in the present case.
The Court notes that the applicant died on an unknown date, in the course of the proceedings before the Court. None of his close relatives informed the Court of their own motion about their wish to pursue the application on the applicant’s behalf (see, by contrast, all the cases cited above). After inquiries, the late applicant’s representative informed the Court that he was not aware whether he had any heirs.
In this respect, the Court reiterates that it has been its practice to strike applications out of the list of cases in the absence of any heir or close relative who has expressed the wish to pursue an application (see Scherer v. Switzerland, judgment of 25 March 1994, Series A no. 287, pp. 14-15, § 31; Karner v. Austria, no. 40016/98, § 23, ECHR 2003-IX; and Thevenon v. France (dec.), no. 2476/02, ECHR 2006-...). The Court therefore considers that it does not have to examine the present application and that Article 37 § 1 of the Convention should be applied.
Consequently, considering that there exist no special circumstances in the present case regarding respect of the rights guaranteed by the Convention or its Protocols which necessitate proceeding with the examination of the complaints raised (see, by contrast, Karner, cited above, § 27), it is appropriate to strike the case out of the list in accordance with Article 37 § 1 of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Stephen PhillipsAnn Power-Forde Deputy Registrar President
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy