SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 28463/02
by Irén PÓDA
against Hungary
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
MrJ.-P. Costa, President,
MrA.B. Baka,
MrI. Cabral Barreto,
MrsA. Mularoni,
MrsE. Fura-Sandström,
MsD. Jočienė,
MrD. Popović, judges
and Mrs S. Dollé, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 May 2002,
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, Ms Irén Póda, was a Hungarian national who was born in 1939 and lived in Budapest. She was represented before the Court by Mr G. Tímár, a lawyer practising in Budapest. The Hungarian Government (“the Government”) were represented by 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.
On 29 March 1995 the applicant instituted civil proceedings requesting the termination of the common ownership of a flat and the regulation of its use.
On 26 January 1998 the Budapest II/III District Court dismissed the applicant’s action.
On 22 February 2000 the Budapest Regional Court changed the first-instance decision in part and ordered the defendants to pay the applicant a fee for the use of the flat.
On 31 October 2001 the Supreme Court confirmed the second-instance decision.
On 22 March and 26 April 2006, respectively, the applicant’s lawyer and the Government informed the Registry that the applicant had died on 18 December 2004 and that no heirs were known. Both parties requested the Court to strike the application out of the list of cases.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the length of the proceedings. Relying on Articles 13, 14 and 17 of the Convention, she also complained that the proceedings were unfair.
THE LAW
The Court observes that the applicant died on 18 December 2004 and that she has no known successors wishing to take her place in the present proceedings. It therefore considers, in application of Article 37 § 1 (c) of the Convention, that the examination of the case should be discontinued, no public policy reasons to justify a continued examination of the application (Article 37 § 1 in fine of the Convention) being present. Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer apply to the case and it should be struck out of the list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
S. DolléJ.-P. Costa
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy