FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 18104/04
by Gisela RUTHS
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
lodged on 30 April 2004
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 22 April 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Snejana Botoucharova,
Karel Jungwiert,
Volodymyr Butkevych,
Rait Maruste,
Mark Villiger,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 April 2004,
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, Mrs Gisela Ruths, is a German national who lives in Eppelheim. The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska. The German Government, having been informed of their right to intervene in the proceedings (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44 of the Rules of Court), did not indicate that they wished to exercise that right.
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 29 September 1988 a bus operating between Ohrid and Struga in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia crashed with a truck stationed on the side of the road. The applicant, who was in the bus at the time of the accident, sustained serious injuries. She underwent several operations in Germany. In 1989 the bus and truck drivers were convicted and fined for “serious traffic offences” punishable under the Criminal Code.
On 28 September 1994 the applicant brought a civil action against the drivers’ employers claiming compensation for the injuries sustained.
After the case has been reconsidered on three occasions, on 26 May 2003 the Ohrid Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s claim as time-barred. That decision was confirmed by the Bitola Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, by decisions dated 20 November 2003 and 6 October 2004, respectively. The last decision was served on the applicant on 25 January 2005.
COMPLAINT
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention that the proceedings had been unreasonably lengthy.
THE LAW
The application was initially brought on behalf of the applicant by Mr L. Naumovski, a lawyer practising in Ohrid, who had apparently represented her in the domestic proceedings. After notice of the application was given to the respondent Government, it transpired from an exchange of correspondence between Mr Naumovski and a Heidelberg law firm advising the applicant in Germany that the latter did not wish to pursue the application. On 6 December 2007 the Court asked, by a registered mail, the applicant to state whether she wished to pursue her application, warning her of the possibility that her case might be struck out of the Court’s list. She failed to respond to that letter.
Having regard to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, the Court concludes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. 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 require the examination of this application to be continued. 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.
Claudia WesterdiekPeer Lorenzen
RegistrarPresident
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy