FIFTH SECTION
DECISION
Application no. 13603/06
by Slavomír SVÍDA
against the Czech Republic
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 18 May 2010 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President,
Renate Jaeger,
Karel Jungwiert,
Rait Maruste,
Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre,
Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska,
Zdravka Kalaydjieva, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 28 March 2006,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
PROCEDURE
The application was lodged by Mr Slavomír Svída, a Czech national who was born in 1952 and lives in Brno. He is represented before the Court by Mr D. Kucera, a lawyer practising in Brno. The Czech Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr V.A. Schorm, from the Ministry of Justice.
The applicant complained under Article 6 of the Convention of the length of the execution proceedings brought against him in June 1993, which lasted until April 2007.
The applicant's complaint was communicated to the Government, who submitted their observations on the admissibility and merits. The observations were forwarded to the applicant, who was invited to submit his own observations by 18 December 2009. No reply was received to the Registry's letter.
By letter dated 18 February 2010, sent by registered post, the applicant's representative was notified that the period allowed for submission of the his observations had expired and that no extension of time had been requested. The applicant's representative's attention was drawn to Article 37 § 1 (a) of the Convention, which provides that the Court may strike a case out of its list of cases where the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the applicant does not intend to pursue the application. The applicant's representative received this letter on 22 February 2010. However, no response has been received.
THE LAW
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 require the continued examination of the case.
In view of the above, it is appropriate to strike the case 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