Application No. 16648/90
by S.L.
against Norway
The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting
in private on 10 February 1993, the following members being present:
MM. S. TRECHSEL, President of the Second Chamber
G. JÖRUNDSSON
A. WEITZEL
J.-C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
H. DANELIUS
Mrs. G.H. THUNE
MM. F. MARTINEZ
J.-C. GEUS
Mr. K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Second Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 27 December 1989
by S.L. against Norway and registered on 31 May 1990 under file No.
16648/90;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having regard to the observations submitted by the respondent
Government on 7 July 1992, the observations in reply submitted by the
applicant on 26 August 1992 and his letter of 5 January 1993;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a Norwegian citizen, born in 1944. He resides
in Oslo. Before the Commission he is represented by Messrs. Alf and
Svein Harald Nordhus, lawyers practising in Oslo.
The application concerns, in so far as it has not been declared
inadmissible, the length of the criminal proceedings, instituted
against the applicant in 1983, ending on 18 August 1989 when the
Supreme Court (Høyesterett) rejected the applicant's appeal. The
applicant complained that his case was not determined within a
reasonable time in the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 27 December 1989 and registered
on 31 May 1990.
On 1 April 1992 the Commission decided to bring the application
to the notice of the respondent Government in so far as it concerned
the length of the criminal proceedings, inviting them to submit written
observations on the admissibility and merits of this particular
complaint. The remainder of the application, as submitted under
Articles 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, and 14 of the Convention and Article 1
of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, was declared inadmissible.
The Government's observations, in which they maintained that the
applicant's complaint concerning the length of the proceedings was
manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible, were submitted on
7 July 1992. The applicant's observations in reply, in which he
questioned the relevance of pursuing the length issue further, were
submitted on 26 August 1992.
By letter of 5 January 1993 the applicant informed the Commission
that he wanted to withdraw the remainder of the application since he
did not intend to pursue the length of proceedings issue any further.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
Having regard to Article 30 para. 1 (a) of the Convention, the
Commission notes that the applicant does not intend to pursue the
remaining part of his petition. Furthermore, it finds no special
circumstances regarding respect for human rights as defined in the
Convention which require the continuation of the examination of the
application.
For these reasons, the Commission unanimously
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OFF ITS LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the Second Chamber President of the Second Chamber
(K. ROGGE) (S. TRECHSEL)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy