SECOND SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 42569/05
by Milan POPOVIĆ
against Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (Second Section), sitting on 21 October 2008 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 2005,
Having regard to the decision to examine the admissibility and merits of the case together (Article 29 § 3 of the Convention),
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Mr Milan Popović, is a Serbian national who was born in 1936 and lives in Novi Sad. 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 18 December 2001 the applicant brought a civil action against the Novi Sad Medical Insurance Fund (“the Fund”) in the Novi Sad Municipal Court, seeking reimbursement of money paid for medical prescriptions.
On 3 December 2002 the Municipal Court accepted the applicant's claim and awarded him the sums sought.
The Fund appealed against that judgment. On 4 December 2003 the Novi Sad District Court remitted the case to the Municipal Court, since the name of the respondent had not been correct.
On 9 March 2004 the Municipal Court corrected the judgment of 3 December 2002 by rectifying the respondent's name.
On 18 May 2005 the District Court returned the case-file to the Municipal Court, requesting it to submit additional documents.
On 18 October 2006 the District Court ruled in favour of the applicant and thus concluded the proceedings.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complained about the length of the above proceedings, as well as the consequent delay in receiving the money which he had to pay for medication.
THE LAW
On 21 September 2006 the Court communicated the application to the respondent Government.
On 21 November 2006 the Court received the Government's observations.
On 24 November 2006 the Government's observations were transmitted to the applicant, who was requested to submit in reply any comments of his own together with any claims for just satisfaction by 9 January 2007.
On 1 July 2008 the applicant informed the Court that his case had been resolved domestically and that he wished to withdraw his application.
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 would require the continued examination of the case.
Accordingly, Article 29 § 3 of the Convention should no longer be applied and the present case should be struck out of the Court's list.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously,
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
Sally DolléF. Tulkens
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy