FOURTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 62221/00
by Margita PRITZOVÁ
against Slovakia
The European Court of Human Rights (Fourth Section), sitting on 21 November 2006 as a Chamber composed of:
SirN. Bratza, President,
MrG. Bonello,
MrM. Pellonpää,
MrK. Traja,
MrL. Garlicki,
MsL. Mijović,
MrJ. Šikuta, judges,
and Mr T.L. Early, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 13 June 2000,
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent Government,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant, Ms Margita Pritzová, is a Slovakian national who was born in 1954 and lives in Bratislava. The Government of the Slovak Republic (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs A. Poláčková.
The applicant is co-owner of a plot of land in the cadastral area Mnešice near Nové Mesto nad Váhom. In 1980 the competent local authority authorised the establishment of a colony of gardens on the land. Since then the land has been used by gardeners.
Following the entry into force of Act 64/1997 on use of plots of land in garden colonies and arrangements as regards their ownership, the applicant has been obliged to lease the land to the gardeners on conditions which she considers to be disadvantageous. Subsequently proceedings were brought under Act 64/1997, the purpose of which was to transfer the ownership of the land to the gardeners and to compensate the applicant. Those proceedings are pending.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention that she was obliged to lease her land at a price which was disproportionately low, that the transfer of the land to individual gardeners under Act 64/1997 was not in the general interest and that an excessive burden was thereby imposed on her.
THE LAW
The Court observes that by a letter of 7 September 2005 the applicant was invited to reply, by 19 October 2005, to the observations of the Government on the above application.
By a registered letter of 10 January 2006 the Registrar of the Fourth Section informed the applicant that the period allowed for submission of her observations in reply had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant’s attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention which provides that:
“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings decide to strike an application out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that
(a) the applicant does not intend to pursue his application...
However, the Court shall continue the examination of the application if respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and the Protocols thereto so requires.”
On 24 January 2006 a postal delivery report (avis de réception) was received at the Court indicating that the registered letter of 10 January 2006 had been received by the applicant on 17 January 2006.
The Court has received no reply to the above letters.
In another registered letter of 27 September 2006 the applicant was invited to inform the Court whether in the above circumstances she wished to pursue the application. In a letter dated 10 October 2006 the applicant replied in the negative.
In the light of the above, the Court considers that the applicant does not intend to pursue her application. The Court also considers that respect for human rights as defined in the Convention and its Protocols does not require it to continue the examination of the case. The application should therefore be struck out of the list of cases in accordance with Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Court unanimously
Decides to strike the application out of its list of cases.
T.L. EarlyNicolas Bratza
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy